Claimant v Reiss Edwards Limited

Tribunal found the claimant's role was genuinely redundant. The respondent had legitimate business reasons for outsourcing the claimant's duties. A fair procedure was followed, including consultation, notice of redundancy, and an appeal process. The dismissal was fair under ss.94-98 ERA.

Under s.99 ERA, claimant alleged dismissal because respondents believed he would take shared parental leave. Tribunal found no evidence to support this: the claimant had not given notice to take SPL, and the redundancy decision was made on genuine business grounds unrelated to any anticipated parental leave.

Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of disability. The treatment complained of was either not established on the facts, or was explained by legitimate business reasons (redundancy, performance management) unrelated to the claimant's disability (flat feet).

Tribunal found the claimant failed to establish the 'something arising' from his disability. The alleged unfavourable treatment (redundancy, requirement to attend office) was not because of anything arising from his flat feet. The respondent's actions were justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate business aims.

Claimant failed to establish group disadvantage — he did not show that the alleged PCPs (e.g. requirement to attend office, to assist with office moves) put disabled persons generally at a particular disadvantage. Even if established, the PCPs were justified as proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of running the business.

Tribunal found the claimant did not clearly identify what reasonable adjustments should have been made. The respondent did make adjustments (e.g. allowing flexible attendance, not requiring physical tasks beyond capability). The claimant's request to work from home permanently was not reasonable given the nature of his office-based role.

Tribunal found that the conduct complained of (e.g. being asked to attend office, being required to keep timesheets, comments about workload) was not unwanted conduct related to disability, nor did it have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. The conduct was legitimate management action.

Claimant alleged he was victimised for asserting his disability rights. Tribunal found that the alleged detriments (redundancy, requirement to attend office, etc.) were not because the claimant had done protected acts. The treatment was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

Under s.47B ERA (whistleblowing detriment), Tribunal found that even if the 8 February 2021 email was a protected disclosure, the alleged detriments (micromanagement, timesheets, redundancy dismissal) were not materially influenced by the disclosure. They were for legitimate business and performance management reasons.