Claimant v Riskex Limited

Tribunal found no facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of disability. The comparators (Quintin Matthee, Mark Legg, David Dack) had materially different circumstances. The claimant misrepresented their circumstances. The photograph exclusion claim failed because claimant was on annual leave by choice. The Christmas party exclusion claim failed because claimant was invited by email like all others.

Tribunal found claimant was permitted to work from home 2 days per week as agreed. From 12 December 2022 onwards, the claimant's request to work from home full-time was primarily due to a bone fracture, not his amniotic band syndrome. The bone fracture was not itself a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act. The respondent's reasons for requiring office attendance (training, mentoring, team support) were genuine and objectively justified. Offers of lifts and help with typing were rejected by claimant.

Tribunal found no material departure from the grievance procedure. The grievance was handled within a reasonable timeframe (12 working days excluding Christmas leave). Questions about the claimant's difficulties were normal employer inquiries to understand the grievance. The conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, applying section 26(4) EqA 2010.

Tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent's conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach. The claimant resigned in response to the rejection of his grievance, but the tribunal found that grievance was properly handled and the underlying claims had no merit.