Claimant v L Rowland & Company (Retail) Limited

The tribunal found that the First Respondent's imposition of reduced staffing levels at branches set by a computer algorithm, including a reduction to 68 base staffing hours at the claimant's branch, did not amount to indirect disability discrimination. The complaint was not well-founded.

The tribunal found that the First Respondent applied a PCP of reduced staffing levels set by algorithm (68 base hours). The claimant suffered substantial disadvantage due to his multiple sclerosis (mobility issues, fatigue, urinary frequency, muscle spasms). The tribunal concluded that increasing base staffing hours from 68 to 80 per week would have been a reasonable adjustment that the respondent failed to make.

The claims relating to failure to respond to the claimant's letter of 28 February, ongoing failure to address understaffing, and failure to afford grievance procedure were withdrawn by the claimant.

The remaining claim of direct age discrimination relating to the conversation on 4 March where the Second Respondent allegedly said 'take a golden handshake at the peak of your career' was not well-founded. The tribunal did not accept that this treatment occurred as alleged or was because of age.

The claims relating to failure to respond to the claimant's letter of 28 February, ongoing failure to address understaffing, and failure to afford grievance procedure were withdrawn by the claimant.

The remaining claim of direct disability discrimination relating to the conversation on 4 March where the Second Respondent allegedly said 'take a golden handshake at the peak of your career' was not well-founded. The tribunal did not accept that this treatment occurred as alleged or was because of disability.

The claims under paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 relating to failure to respond to letter and failure to afford grievance were withdrawn by the claimant.

The remaining claims of discrimination arising from disability, including the ongoing failure to address understaffing and the conversation on 4 March, were not well-founded. The tribunal did not accept that the unfavourable treatment occurred as alleged or was because of something arising from the claimant's disability.

The harassment claims in paragraph 1 of section F relating to failure to respond to letter, failure to address understaffing, and failure to afford grievance were withdrawn by the claimant.

The harassment claims in paragraph 1 of section F relating to failure to respond to letter, failure to address understaffing, and failure to afford grievance were withdrawn by the claimant.

The remaining harassment claim relating to the conversation on 4 March was not well-founded. The tribunal did not accept that this unwanted conduct occurred as alleged or had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The remaining harassment claim relating to the conversation on 4 March was not well-founded. The tribunal did not accept that this unwanted conduct occurred as alleged or had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.