Claimant v Roke Manor Research Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of PTSD and co-morbid depression/anxiety, but not Asperger's Syndrome. The respondent lacked knowledge of the substantial disadvantage. The dismissal was because of failure to meet technical competency standards, not because of anything arising from disability. The claimant maintained throughout that his technical ability was not compromised by his disability.
The tribunal found the respondent knew the claimant had a long-term mental health condition and provided the requested adjustment (flexible working hours). However, the claimant never informed the respondent that he suffered from intrusion or was unable to concentrate fully. The respondent did not have the requisite knowledge of the disability or the substantial disadvantage claimed.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Sales Solution Architect from November 2022, subject to a six-month probation. He disclosed a long-term mental health condition to Occupational Health and was granted flexible working hours (4 days per week). He worked on three projects during probation. Feedback from colleagues on all three projects raised concerns about his technical ability, software delivery capability, time management, and interpersonal skills. On 25 May 2023, following a probation review, he was dismissed for failing to meet the required technical standards. At the review meeting, he disclosed Asperger's Syndrome for the first time. He appealed, alleging disability discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled by PTSD, depression and anxiety, but not Asperger's Syndrome due to insufficient evidence. Both discrimination claims failed. The section 15 claim failed because: (1) the respondent lacked knowledge of substantial disadvantage; (2) the dismissal was because of insufficient technical competency, not anything arising from disability; and (3) the claimant himself consistently maintained his technical ability was not compromised by disability. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent had no knowledge that the claimant suffered intrusion or concentration difficulties.
Practical note
An employer cannot be liable for failure to make reasonable adjustments or discrimination arising from disability where the employee has not disclosed the nature and impact of their condition, and the employer has already implemented the only adjustment requested (flexible working).
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1405660/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Solution Architect / Grade 6 Engineer
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No