Claimant v Nexmo Limited

Tribunal found that non-award of Long Term Incentive (LTI) in February/March 2023 was direct disability discrimination. The tribunal inferred discrimination from: (1) chronology—claimant received performance bonuses/pay rises when not disabled, but these stopped when disabled; (2) inconsistent and poorly evidenced allegations of poor performance; (3) lack of documentary support for poor performance; and (4) claimant was the only one of 121 Nexmo employees not to receive LTI. Respondent failed to prove non-discriminatory reason. However, non-award of pay rise succeeded on non-discriminatory grounds—it was an automatic consequence of claimant not completing performance review forms.

Claimant alleged various PCPs: sick pay policy placing him on SSP after 26 weeks, requirement for unpaid leave, failure to have medical severance policy, and practice of refusing medical severance requests. Tribunal found some were PCPs but either: (1) they were not applied to claimant (e.g. never actually placed on SSP), (2) did not put disabled persons at particular disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons, or (3) were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (retention, rehabilitation, fairness). Claim dismissed.

Claimant alleged various acts of harassment including being told he would go on SSP, being sent sickness policy, refusal of medical severance requests, and police welfare check. Tribunal found conduct was unwanted and related to disability, and had the effect of creating intimidating/hostile environment for claimant. However, tribunal found this effect was not reasonable in all the circumstances. Respondent acted reasonably throughout: it was appropriate to inform claimant of policy changes, to refuse termination when income protected by PHI and prospect of recovery existed, and entirely reasonable to contact police given content of claimant's email. Claim dismissed.