Claimant v Peloton interactive UK Ltd

The tribunal found that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant because of his disability. The claimant failed to establish that he was treated less favourably than a comparator would have been treated in comparable circumstances.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not indirectly discriminate against the claimant because of his disability. No provision, criterion or practice was identified that put the claimant at a particular disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons.

The tribunal found no discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. Either the treatment was not because of something arising from disability, or it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The tribunal found the respondent discriminated by failing to make reasonable adjustments in two respects: not providing adequate rest breaks and requiring the claimant to work in public facing areas. These were reasonable adjustments that should have been made to accommodate the claimant's disability. Other reasonable adjustment claims failed.

The tribunal determined that the respondent did not subject the claimant to harassment related to disability. The conduct complained of did not meet the statutory test for harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found no victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The claimant failed to establish that he was subjected to a detriment because he had done a protected act.