Mr R Evans v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd: 1308365/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 2021 |
| Citation | 1308365/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 30 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 1308365/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr R Evans
Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
Heard at: Birmingham (by CVP) On: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 March 2021
Before: Employment Judge Miller
Ms S Outwin
Mr D Faulconbridge
Representation
Claimant: Ms F Almezidi – Solicitor
Respondent: Mr C Crow - Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed is well founded and
succeeds.
2. The claimant’s claim that he was discriminated against because of
something arising in consequence of his disability under section 15
Equality Act 2010 is unsuccessful and is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable
adjustments in accordance with sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act
2010 is unsuccessful and is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a production operative
from 15 July 2014 until his dismissal with effect on 19 August 2019.
2. The claimant commenced a period of early conciliation on 30 September
2019 and that finished on 30 October 2019. On 7 November 2019 the
claimant presented a claim to the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal
and disability discrimination. The claimant’s claims of disability
Case No: 1308365/2019
2
discrimination were later clarified at a case management hearing before
Employment Judge Cookson and were identified as
3. EQA, section 15: discrimination arising from disability
3.1. Did the following thing(s) arise in consequence of the claimant’s
disability:
3.1.1. The claimant’s asthma related absences from work which led or
contributed to his dismissal
3.2. Did the respondent dismiss the claimant because of that sickness
absence?
3.3. If so, has the respondent shown that the dismissal was a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim?
3.4. Alternatively, has the respondent shown that it did not know, and could
not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had the
disability?
4. Reasonable adjustments: EQA, sections 20 & 21
4.1. Did the respondent not know and could it not reasonably have been
expected to know the claimant was a disabled person?
4.2. A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the respondent have
the following PCP(s):
4.2.1. Requiring the claimant to work rotating day, morning and
afternoon shifts [clarified in the hearing to night shifts]?
4.3. Did any such PCP put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in
relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not
disabled at any relevant time, in that the rotating shifts make it difficult
for the claimant to manage his medication which affects his sleep
patterns and makes it more difficult to manage the severity of asthma
symptoms?
4.4. If so, did the respondent know or could it reasonably have been
expected to know the claimant was likely to be placed at any such
disadvantage?
4.5. If so, were there steps that were not taken that could have been taken
by the respondent to avoid any such disadvantage? The burden of
proof does not lie on the claimant, however it is helpful to know what
steps the claimant alleges should have been taken and they are
identified as follows:
4.5.1. Allowing the claimant to work fixed morning shifts
Case No: 1308365/2019
3
4.6. If so, would it have been reasonable for the respondent to have to take
those steps at any relevant time?
5. The claimant also identified a claim of harassment related to disability but
that claim was subsequently withdrawn on 10 June 2020.
6. The respondent’s response was that the claimant was fairly dismissed for a
reason relating to capability as the claimant had a significant number of
absences amounting to a significant period of time over his working life with
the respondent or in the alternative for a reason relating to conduct in
relation to the claimant’s alleged failure to notify the respondent of all of his
absences and the reasons for them.
7. In respect of the disability discrimination claims, the respondent initially
denied that the claimant was disabled or, in the alternative, that the
respondent had any knowledge of his disability if he was disabled.
However, by the date of the final hearing the respondent had conceded
both that the claimant was disabled and that they had knowledge of that
disability at the relevant time. The disability that was both pleaded and
conceded was asthma. We record that the claimant has a serious and
severe form of asthma called brittle asthma and that he had had a
significant number of hospital admissions as a result of that. It clearly had,
when bad, a significant impact on him. It did not seem to be contentious that
in between periods when the claimant asthma was affecting him badly, the
asthma had little or no impact on him on a day-to-day basis.
8. The respondent did not concede either that the claimant was disabled or
that they had knowledge of that until 25 February 2021, just two working
days before the start of this hearing.
9. Before the tribunal, the respondent sought to rely on the legitimate aims of
maintaining quality, maintaining timescales/production, reducing absence to
competitive levels, and avoiding redundancies in respect of the section 15
claim. This was not pleaded in the respondent’s response and nor did they,
as far as we are aware, take advantage of Employment Judge Cookson’s
decision to allow them to provide an amended response by 4 June 2020
setting out such pleadings. However, the claimant did not take any issue
with the introduction of these legitimate aims at such a late stage and on
enquiry from the tribunal, the claimant’s representative confirmed that she
was prepared to address the legitimate aims as required.
10. In respect of the reasonable adjustments claim, the respondent also said
that the claimant did not request any such adjustments. Of course, the
claimant is not required to request adjustments: once the respondent is
fixed with knowledge of both the disability and the disadvantage, it is up to
them to make such adjustments as appropriate. However, the adjustments
contended for at this stage by the claimant were a change to his shift
patterns so that he works mornings only to reduce the impact of a rotating
shift pattern on his medication.
To continue reading
Request your trial