Mr J White v Transport for London and others: 2300219/2019 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 2023 |
| Date | 14 April 2023 |
| Published date | 17 November 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Citation | 2300219/2019 and others |
Case Number: 2300219/2019
2305504/2019
2304788/2020
2308389/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr J White
Respondent: (1) Transport for London
(2) Mr J Burdon
(3) Mr K Sarr
Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal
On: 13, 14, 17,18,19, 24, 25 October 2022
28, 29, 30 November, 1, 2 December 2022
8, 9 and 10 March 2023 (In Chambers)
24 March 2023 (In Chambers)
Before: EJ Webster
Ms J Jerram
Mr K Murphy
Appearances
For the claimant: In person
For the respondents: Ms I. Ferber (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case Number: 2300219/2019
2305504/2019
2304788/2020
2308389/2020
2
1. The Claimant’s claims for direct disability discrimination are not upheld.
2. The Claimant’s claims for discrimination arising out of disability (s15 Equality
Act 2010) are not upheld save for the claim that his dismissal occurred because
of something arising from his disability which is upheld.
3. The Claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments are not
upheld save for the failure to adjust the policy that RPIs must be deployed in
hotspots. That claim is upheld.
4. The Claimant’s claims for disability related harassment are not upheld.
5. The Claimant’s claims for victimisation are not upheld.
6. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is upheld.
7. The Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal is partially upheld.
REASONS
The Hearing
1. A preliminary hearing with a different employment judge shortly before the first
hearing had agreed some adjustments for the claimant. Frequent breaks were
taken and the claimant was also reassured at the beginning of every section,
that he could take a break at any time should he wish to do so.
2. The claim was heard by hybrid hearing. The parties and the Tribunal were in
person but, other than when they were giving evidence, all the respondent
witnesses were absent from the Tribunal room and allowed to watch via CVP
link as opposed to in person.
3. The Tribunal allowed the claimant to give evidence from the representative’s
table.
4. The Tribunal refused the claimant leave to record the proceedings but the
respondent provided a note taker (a pupil from Ms Ferber’s chambers) who sent
copies of her notes to the Claimant at the end of each day and on occasion
over the lunch break to assist the claimant with his conduct of the case. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal had no oversight of those notes and did not
view them.
5. The claimant made an application to amend his claim on the first day to include
claims that he said had come to light on disclosure of some documents in
August 2022. The application was partly allowed and partly rejected. Reasons
were given on the day but in summary, the amendments that were allowed
were, in our view, more detailed information that fell under claims that had
already been pleaded but that the claimant wanted to set out as separate
incidents. The amendments that were not allowed, brought fresh factual claims
Case Number: 2300219/2019
2305504/2019
2304788/2020
2308389/2020
3
involving new individuals that would have required new witness evidence from
witnesses who were not already called and this would have caused the
respondent significant prejudice to defend at this late stage of the proceedings.
It was not in the interests of either party for the hearing to be postponed at this
late date which is what would have needed to happen were that evidence
required.
6. There were applications by both parties to add documents to the bundle as the
case progressed. The main issue arose when the claimant cross examined a
witness stating that an email had been sent when it was apparent that the email
had been recalled and the claimant would have been aware of that because of
the information he had received via an SAR. Those documents were added to
the bundle.
7. Due to judicial and administrative resources, the hearing was split into four sections
as per the dates above. Days 12-16 were all in Chambers and the parties did not
attend.
8. We had written witness statements for the following:
a. The Claimant
b. Ahsen Mir (AM) (claimant’s trade union representative)
c. Reydon Downer (RD) (Claimant’s friend and support worker)
d. John Burdon (JB) (the Second Respondent and the Claimant’s line
manager)
e. Khalil Sarr (KS) (The Third Respondent and the Claimant’s next line
manager and the person who made the decision to dismiss)
f. Amrit Phlora (AP) (witness for the Respondents)
g. Anand Nandha (AN) (witness for the Respondents)
h. Dayo Abifarin (DA) (witness for the Respondents)
i. Mark Burch (MB) (witness for the Respondents)
j. Nick Bignall (NB)(witness for the Respondents)
k. Roger White (RW) (witness for the Respondents)
l. Sean Conroy (witness for the Respondents and the person who heard
the Claimant’s appeal against his dismissal)
9. We heard from all of the above witnesses save for Mr Mir who did not attend. The
only explanation provided for him not attending was that he had personal matters
to attend to. We have therefore attached less weight to his statement though we
have read it. Mr Downer was available to give evidence and his witness statement
was accepted as evidence in chief but he was not cross examined.
To continue reading
Request your trial