Mr D Virdee v London Borough of Islington: 3307569/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 2022 |
| Date | 17 October 2022 |
| Published date | 28 October 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3307569/2020 |
Case Number: 3307569/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondents
M
r D Virdee
v
London Borough of Islington
Heard at: Watford, in person and (on 5
October 2022) via CVP
On: 4-7, 10 and (in private) 11 October
2022
Before: Employment Judge Hyams Members: Ms M Harris
Mr D Wharton
Appearances:
For the claimant: Mrs P Virdee (the claimant’s wife)
For the respondent: Ms Andrea Chute, of counsel
UNANIMOUS RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claim of breaches of section 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010
succeeds. The claimant is entitled to the sum of £14,000 by way of
compensation for injury to his feelings and pain and suffering plus interest of
£3,620.82.
2. The claims of failures to make reasonable adjustments within the meaning of
sections 20 and 21 of that Act were made out of time and are dismissed.
REASONS
The claims made by the claimant in this case
1 By a claim form presented on 6 December 2019, the claimant claimed (by ticking
the box on page 6 for “disability” discrimination) that he had been “discriminated
against on the grounds of” disability. Those words are not apt to cover the
precise terms of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”), even in regard to a claim of
direct discrimination within the meaning of section 13 of that Act, given that the
words “on the grounds of” nowhere appear in that Act, and given that the
applicable word in section 13 is “because”. That observation is, of course,
applicable to all claims of discrimination contrary to the EqA 2010 made to an
Case Number: 3307569/2020
2
employment tribunal, since claimants are obliged to use the ET1 claim form. It
illustrates, however, the caution which must be applied when considering
precisely what a claimant is in fact claiming.
2 In this case, the claimant claimed in addition in the box on page 6 of the claim
form, which was on page 9 of the hearing bundle (any reference below to a page
is, unless otherwise stated, a reference to a page of that bundle), that he was
“making another type of claim which the Employment Tribunal can deal with” of
this sort:
“Injury to feelings and harassmnet [sic] related to my sickness and disability”.
3 In box 8.2 of the ET1 form, on page 10, there were at the start of the box these
words.
“I have attached a document which I submitted as a grievance to the
respondent. It includes most of the basis of my ET claim. The grievance is
still outstanding and the responses I have received back I believe also
further discrimination.”
4 In the middle of box 8.2, on page 10, this was said (and we quote the words as
they were used, precisely, complete with all original textual errors):
“Here is a summary of the issues
Outcome: Injury to feelings compensation ? due to the fact that the council
failed to make reasonable adjustments for up to 1.5 years. This feel this has
effected my physical and mental well being. I have been continually
harassed and been discriminated towards relating to my disability. Variously
extremely offensive remarks were made undermining my disability by
managers and HR even though they had access to all my medical records..
My manager falsified my sickness record and failed to follow the councils
managing attendance policy to progress me to the final stage without due
justification. This caused me a lot of stress and lead to me lodging a
grievance. At this time the GP diagnosed me with work related stress and
prescribed me with medication.”
5 In box 9.2 of the claim form, on page 11, in addition to compensation, the
claimant said that he was seeking “Reasonable adjustment to be put into place
and no further acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation to occur.”
6 The grievance document attached to the claim form was detailed. It was at
pages 15-25. It had four sections which the claimant described as “the headings
under which I would like to raise my grievance”. They were these:
6.1 “Factually inaccurate information as justification to progress to Stage 3 of the
managing attendance process”;
Case Number: 3307569/2020
3
6.2 “The failure of to adhered to the managing attendance policy”;
6.3 “Failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equalities Act 2010”;
6.4 “Harassment and Disability Discrimination”.
7 The first and second of those three complaints were not ostensibly within the
jurisdiction of the tribunal.
8 There was a section headed “Expected Outcomes” at pages 24-25 which started
in this way:
“1. The progression to Stage 3 to be retracted, as the sickness policy has
not been followed. Also, the basis on which the progression to Stage 3
has been justified is full of inaccuracies, which have been highlighted in
my grievance and attached response to Stage 3 email dated 5th March
2020.
2. I request for the Council to review my situation properly and make the
necessary reasonable adjustments. Below I outline the reasonable
adjustment, which I feel would be greatly beneficial in removing any
barriers, which put me at a substantial disadvantage due to my disability.
• Working from home 2 days a week (Ideally Tuesdays and Thursday)
– Travelling to work on consecutive days causes considerable strain
on my back and I am physically limited to be able to do this. If I
travel consecutive days my health will deteriorate and render me
unable to work.
Removing this travel barrier will allow me to continue to work with
my disability. This will not have any negative impact on my ability to
fulfil my work duties. This has been supported by numerous medical
professionals, (OH, GP, chiropractor and physiotherapist) that this
would certainly be beneficial in managing my condition.
• Off Peak Travelling – Travelling off peak reduces the time I am
sitting in traffic and overall commuting time. I am requesting and
change in working hours to the following - Start at 10am and finish at
5pm, take 30 mins lunch break on the days I am in the office.
Working from Home days Start 9am and finish 5.15pm, with 30mins
lunch break. This would allow me to fulfil my contractual hours of 35
per week This has been trialled since last 6 weeks and proven to
help and working well and have no impact on the business.”
The original response to the claim
To continue reading
Request your trial