Claimant v JD Wetherspoon PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did have a disability at the relevant time but dismissed all claims of direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, concluding that the respondent had not treated the claimant less favourably because of his disability.
The tribunal dismissed the s.15 Equality Act 2010 claims (discrimination arising from disability), finding that any unfavourable treatment was not because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability, or that such treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments claims under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, finding that the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments or that no duty to make such adjustments arose in the circumstances.
The tribunal dismissed the disability-related harassment claims under s.26 Equality Act 2010, finding that the alleged conduct did not amount to unwanted conduct related to disability that had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Facts
Mr Beech brought disability discrimination claims against his former employer JD Wetherspoon Plc. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled at the relevant time under the Equality Act 2010. However, the hearing scheduled for 2-4 December 2024 had to be postponed because the claimant failed to provide a witness statement in time. During the proceedings, the claimant made allegations which he later admitted were untrue.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment. The tribunal found that the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably both by failing to provide his witness statement in time and by making false allegations, and awarded costs of £600 against him.
Practical note
Even where disability status is accepted, unrepresented claimants risk costs orders for procedural failures and making untrue allegations, and must still prove the substantive elements of discrimination claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1808956/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No