Claimant v Johnsons Textile Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence regarding substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities to be exaggerated and unreliable, noting he worked as a postman carrying out physical tasks shortly after the alleged disability period. Medical evidence showed his symptoms had almost completely resolved.
Because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time, his claim of unfavourable treatment arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 could not succeed. The claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal found the claimant could not demonstrate a reasonable belief that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger under s.100(1)(d) ERA. The respondent had conducted risk assessments showing low risk, offered support, and taken reasonable steps to ensure safety. The tribunal found no serious or imminent danger existed.
The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent. The matters relied upon either did not happen, were reasonable management actions (like warning of potential dismissal at a capability meeting), or reflected genuine operational constraints (inability to provide double-manning). The respondent acted reasonably in refusing a two-month phased return due to economic and operational pressures.
Withdrawn by claimant at the hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a routeman for a textile services company from June 2015 to March 2023, collecting and delivering laundered workwear. He went on sick leave in September 2022 with back pain and pins and needles, was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis in October 2022, and sought a two-month phased return with assistance from a colleague. The respondent offered alternative adjustments including training, risk assessments, and equipment, but said double-manning was not operationally feasible. The claimant refused to return without a colleague to assist him and resigned in March 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010, finding his evidence of substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities exaggerated and inconsistent with his subsequent work as a postman. The tribunal found no serious and imminent danger justifying his refusal to work, and no repudiatory breach of contract, as the respondent had acted reasonably in offering adjustments while explaining genuine operational constraints.
Practical note
Credibility is critical in disability claims: exaggerated evidence of functional limitations, especially when contradicted by subsequent physical employment, will undermine the entire claim and lead tribunals to reject assertions of substantial adverse effects.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2601300/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Routeman
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister