Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited

The tribunal found that Mr Laughland (the union representative) was not an appropriate comparator as he was not in the same circumstances as the claimant — he was not subject to wellness meetings. The tribunal also found that any difference in treatment was not because of the claimant's disability, but because Mr Laughland had contacted Mr Spence directly to arrange a date, whereas the claimant had not made such a proposal.

The tribunal found that the claimant required the attendance of his Advocacy Support Worker (Ms Strang) at meetings, which would prevent substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees. The respondent failed to take reasonable steps when it rescheduled a meeting from 2 March 2023 (when Ms Strang was available) to 3 March 2023 (when she was not), despite being informed she could not attend on Fridays. Mr Spence should have taken a more proactive approach to accommodate Ms Strang's availability.

The harassment claim related to conduct between March and September 2021. The last act was on 30 September 2021. The claim was brought approximately 17 months out of time. The tribunal found the conduct did not form part of continuing acts with the 2023 complaints, and it was not just and equitable to extend time given the length of delay, the claimant had union representation at the time, and there was prejudice to the respondent due to inability to recall events clearly.

The victimisation claim related to events in November and December 2020 and was brought significantly out of time. The tribunal found it did not form part of continuing conduct and it was not just and equitable to extend time for the same reasons as the harassment claim. On the merits, the tribunal found the protected act (agreeing the adjustment passport) did not cause the investigation or disclosure — the investigation was due to a colleague's complaint, and the disclosure was to prevent similar incidents, not because of the protected act.