Claimant v LHR Airports Ltd

The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably. Being allocated a specific interview slot was to facilitate extra time, not a detriment. Comments made during feedback were not derogatory and would have been said to a non-disabled person in the same circumstances. There was no refusal to consider the Lexxic Report as the claimant alleged.

The tribunal found that even assuming group disadvantage existed, the respondent's justification was made out. The SOM role is fast-paced and requires instant life-and-death decisions, so the recruitment process legitimately reflected the demanding requirements of the role. The claimant accepted this justification.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that the alleged unfavourable treatment occurred. Even if it had, the respondent showed that the interview process was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of recruiting for a senior security role requiring rapid decision-making.

The tribunal found that the respondent did provide the key adjustment the claimant needed: extra time. The claimant was offered extra time and probing assistance during the interview. The claimant never requested interview questions in advance and this was not recommended in the Lexxic Report. To the extent recommendations were relevant and applicable, they were followed.

The tribunal rejected all the alleged harassment complaints for the same reasons as the direct discrimination claims. The comments alleged were either not made in the way suggested or were not derogatory in nature and did not violate the claimant's dignity or create a hostile environment.