Dr M Sisson-Curbishley v Maximus UK Services Ltd: 1304546/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The unanimous Judgement of the tribunal is that: The respondent did not, at any time material to this claim, act towards the claimant in contravention of Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant’s complaint of discrimination arising from disability contrary to Section 15 of that Act, brought pursuant to Section 120 of that Act, is dismissed. Employment Judge Gaskell 6 January 2023 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.[2]Case Number 1304546/2021 Type V 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant AND Respondent Dr M Sisson-Curbishley Maximus UK Services Limited[3]JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT Birmingham ON 3 – 6 January 2023 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GASKELL MEMBERS: Ms S Campbell Mr MZ Khan Representation For the Claimant: In Person For the Respondent: Ms M Polimac (Counsel) JUDGMENT (Originally promulgated on 6 January 2023 but re-printed here for ease of reference) The unanimous Judgement of the tribunal is that: The respondent did not, at any time material to this claim, act towards the claimant in contravention of Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant’s complaint of discrimination arising from disability contrary to Section 15 of that Act, brought pursuant to Section 120 of that Act, is dismissed.REASONS
[1]This judgment with reasons was delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing on 6 January 2023. These written reasons are provided pursuant to a request from the respondent dated 11 January 2023.Introduction
[2]The claimant in this case is Dr Mark Sisson-Curbishley, a Medical Practitioner, who was employed by the respondent, Maximus UK Services Limited, as a Functional Assessor from 17 May 2016 until 3 December 2021 when he resigned by notice given on 3 November 2021.[3]By a claim form presented to the tribunal on 18 October 2021, the claimant brings a claim for disability discrimination. Case Number 1304546/2021 Type V 2[4]It is the claimant’s case that at the material time (September 2021) he was a disabled person by reason of suffering from PTSD (diagnosed in 2018); Anxiety and Depression (diagnosed in August 2021); and ADHD (diagnosed in October 2021).[5]At a Preliminary Hearing conducted by Employment Judge Harding on 1 April 2022, it was established that the claimant’s claim is limited to a single event which occurred in September 2021 when he was given a first written warning under the respondent’s Sickness Absence Management Policy. It is the claimant’s case that the giving of this warning was an act of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of his disability namely his levels of sickness absence. Provided that the respondent has knowledge of the disability, conduct such as this is prohibited by Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) unless it can be objectively justified.[6]The respondent has conceded the following:(a) At the material time the claimant was a disabled person.(b) That the claimant’s high levels of absence arose as a consequence of his disability.(c) That the respondent had adequate knowledge of the disability for the provisions of Section 15 EqA to be engaged.[7]Despite those concessions, the respondent resists this claim on the following bases:(a) It is the respondent’s case that, in the circumstances in which it was given, the first written warning was not unfavourable treatment.(b) That in any event, the first written warning is objectively justifiable.[8]It follows that the issues for this panel to determine are firstly, whether in giving the first written warning the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably; and secondly, if that was the case, whether such treatment was justified.The Evidence
[9]The claimant gave evidence on his own account; he did not call any additional witnesses. The respondent relied on the evidence of three witnesses: Mrs Elaine vanden Boss - Assessment Centre Manager until her retirement in October 2022 who was the claimant’s line manager at the material time; Mr James Spratt - Assessment Centre Manager for Preston & Blackpool whose decision it was to give the claimant a first written warning; and Mr Graeme David