Claimant v Mitie Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant's evidence was found to be unreliable, exaggerated, and unsupported by medical evidence, and much of the claimed substantial adverse effect related to periods outside the relevant employment period.

This claim was dismissed as a consequence of the tribunal's finding that the claimant did not meet the statutory definition of a disabled person. Without establishing disability status, no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose.

The harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the claimant did not establish that he was a disabled person during the relevant period. The tribunal found his evidence on disability status unconvincing and unsupported by contemporaneous medical evidence.

The victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed following the tribunal's determination that the claimant was not a disabled person. Without the protected characteristic being established, the victimisation claim could not proceed.

The whistleblowing detriment claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing, which dealt only with the disability status issue. This claim will proceed to a full merits hearing scheduled for January 2025.

The automatically unfair dismissal claim (relating to whistleblowing) was not determined at this preliminary hearing. It remains live and will be heard at the final hearing scheduled for 20 January 2025.