Claimant v CP Woburn (Operating Company) Limited

Tribunal found rejection of high ropes application was unfavourable treatment and arose from disability (lack of safety awareness, prone to autistic meltdowns and hemiplegic migraines if under stress). However, it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of keeping colleagues and customers safe in a safety-critical role. Dismissal was found not to be because of anything arising from disability — it was due to lengthy absence, clear indication claimant not returning, and failure to engage in return-to-work discussions.

Multiple PCPs alleged. Tribunal found: no PCP re parental escort (was permitted); no PCP re not supplying safety clothes/shoes (not established or no substantial disadvantage); bicycle/trailer PCP found but no substantial disadvantage shown; no PCP re not managing colleague Harry (factual premise not made out). For high ropes role: PCP of requiring medical fitness and working at height accepted, but proposed adjustments (allowing claimant into role or confining to ground duties) were not reasonable given safety-critical nature of role, impairments in Care Act Assessment (lack of safety awareness, communication difficulties, risk of hemiplegic migraines causing paralysis), and need to rotate roles to avoid complacency. Adjustments would have been futile and created unacceptable safety risks.

Five allegations of harassment related to disability all dismissed. Tribunal found: no refusal to allow mother to attend meetings (factual premise not made out); statement about departmental move was factual clarification, not unwanted conduct; assertions about failure to attend meeting were true statements of fact, not unwanted conduct. Even where conduct arguably unwanted (attempt to schedule meeting when claimant abroad), tribunal found no relationship between the conduct and the claimant's disabilities — conduct motivated by need to engage with long-term absent employee, not by disability.

Respondent conceded ET1 was protected act. Mr Sturzaker believed discrimination claim likely. However, tribunal found alleged false allegations about non-attendance at meeting were true statements of fact (not a detriment). As to dismissal: although a detriment and Mr Sturzaker anticipated a discrimination claim, tribunal accepted respondent's evidence that genuine and only reasons for dismissal were length of sickness absence, clear indication claimant not returning, and failure to engage in return-to-work discussions. The protected act (or belief claimant might do one) played no part in decision to dismiss.

Wrongful dismissal complaint was struck out at a preliminary hearing on 28 January 2025 before Employment Judge Milner-Moore. The claimant and her mother did not attend that hearing. No reasoning provided in this judgment as to the basis for strike-out, but it was a procedural order prior to the final hearing.