Claimant v West Midlands Growth Company Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out. Fundamental factual disputes remain about whether the claimant was genuinely unable to identify essential criteria from the job advert due to his autism, ADHD and dyspraxia, and whether he possessed suitable skills for the role. These matters cannot be determined without hearing oral evidence.
The tribunal refused strike-out and deposit order applications. While there are potential causation challenges in the claim, core factual disputes exist about whether the respondent's treatment was because of something arising from disability or simply because the claimant lacked suitable qualifications. These disputes require oral evidence to resolve.
The tribunal refused strike-out and deposit order applications. While the claimant's formal complaint of 17 November 2023 used template language, the email trail showed earlier communications expressing concerns about discrimination and requesting reasonable adjustments. Whether this constituted a protected act and why the respondent did not respond requires oral evidence.
Facts
The claimant, who has autism, ADHD and dyspraxia, applied for a Business Development Manager role with the respondent on 18 September 2023 using a generic CV that detailed his disabilities. He requested reasonable adjustments: that essential criteria be sent to him by email and that he be allowed to make an oral application. The respondent did not provide these adjustments. After a telephone call with HR and various follow-up emails requesting the adjustments, the claimant was unsuccessful. He made a formal complaint of discrimination on 17 November 2023. The respondent applied to strike out his claims or for deposit orders, arguing he was a serial litigant unsuitable for the role.
Decision
Employment Judge Kight refused both the strike-out and deposit order applications. The judge found fundamental disputes of fact that could not be determined without oral evidence, including whether the claimant genuinely needed the adjustments due to his disabilities and whether he had relevant skills for the role. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to add a direct discrimination claim on the basis it was out of time with little prospect of extending time being just and equitable.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has extensive tribunal litigation history and uses template documents, strike-out of disability discrimination claims requires the clearest case, and core factual disputes about the genuineness of adjustment needs and the reasons for employer conduct must be tested in oral evidence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308527/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Business Development Manager for Low Carbon and Manufacturing
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No