Mr S Mohammed v B Braun (Avitum) UK Ltd: 1601374/2020
JUDGMENT
The Claimant was, at all material times, disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.REASONS
[1]By a claim received on 16 June 2020 the Claimant Mr Shahid Mohammed claimed disability discrimination against the Respondents as a result of discussions with regard to his return to work in about late March 2020 and having been advised to return to work against the advice of professionals he was given his dismissal with immediate effect. The Claimant says that he was told by NHS 111 that due to having asthma he would fall into a high category which is a disability which makes him highly vulnerable to the virus.[2]The Respondents in response referred to the Claimant’s probationary period having identified a number of concerns with his performance and that in April 2020 the Claimant sent his Unit Manager, Alice Sprake, an Case Number: 1601374/2020 2 extremely rude and inappropriate email as a result of these matters the Claimant’s employment was terminated with effect on 14 April 2020. It was denied that the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of Section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It is also said that if the Tribunal were to conclude that the Claimant was disabled at the time of the alleged less favourable treatment, it is denied that any alleged less favourable treatment was related to any such disability. The Respondent denies any liability to the Claimant.[3]There has been a Preliminary Hearing on 30 November 2020 on the issue of whether the Claimant was disabled for the purposes of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times which concluded with Judgment in favour of the Claimant. Subsequently there has been a Case Management Hearing on 28 January 2021 which identified the issues as being discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 namely did the Respondent treat the Claimant unfavourably by(1) conduct of managers, Deana Webber and Alice Sprake in asking the Claimant to return to work within 7 days contrary to medical advice and subsequently(2) dismissing the Claimant. Did the following things arise in consequence of the Claimant’s disability namely his absence from an inability to attend work for 14 days from 28 March 2020 to 10 April 2020. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant himself Mr Shahid Mohammed; Miss Alice Sprake, Unit Manager based at Newport Renal Unit; and Miss Deana Louise Webber, Operations Manager for the Respondents.[4]The Respondents provide the NHS with haemodialysis products and services at various sites across the UK. One of those sites is the Newport Renal Unit in South Wales. The Claimant commenced his employment as a Healthcare Worker at the Newport Renal Unit on 9 September 2019. He worked for 18 hours per week which comprised one 12 hour shift and a 6 hour shift. At the time of working for the Respondents the Claimant also had other employment with the Royal Mail. Miss Sprake was the Claimant’s direct Line Manager. Miss Sprake said that the Claimant never disclosed to her and she did not know that he suffered from asthma during his employment. The Claimant says that he first told Miss Sprake about his asthma on 29 October 2019 after he had been approached by Miss Sprake in regards to a job offer for working full time. The Claimant says that as a result of that conversation he sent an email to Miss Sprake. The date of the email is 26 October 2019 which is not in accordance with his written evidence about the date of the conversation. However the email starts by the Claimant thanking Miss Sprake for asking him if he would like to add an additional 18 hours to his existing contracted hours which will take him to 36 (full time). The email goes on to propose an alternative to 3 long day shifts (12 hours) and suggests a realignment of the structure which will improve performance and will show Miss Sprake’s calibre as a Manager. The Claimant proposes that he works 5 days a week which consists of one Case Number: 1601374/2020 3 12 hour shift and then four 6 hour shifts. The Claimant concludes by saying that Miss Sprake could have a think if need be discuss with your colleague about the Claimant’s suggestions and he would talk further about it. Nowhere in this email is there any reference to the fact that the Claimant has asthma and that doing three long 12 hour shifts including his Royal Mail work would trigger his asthma. This is surprising if the reason given for refusing to undertake the three 12 hour shifts offers was connected with his medical condition. We reject the Claimant’s evidence that there was a discussion where he mentioned his asthma, whether the conversation took place in the tea room with Miss Sprake or otherwise. The Claimant also says that he had mentioned at the Preliminary Hearing that he had told Miss Sprake on a second occasion about his asthma which arose because he and others would have to wait in the cold until 7.00am for access to the unit and that he suggested that he had access to keys so as to avoid the cold affecting his asthma. There was a lack of detail about when this conversation occurred and if it occurred at the 3 month review in December 2019, which is a matter which is referred to in the written evidence of the Claimant, there is nothing in the document which refers to this concern or the fact of asthma being suffered by the Claimant. Miss Sprake was adamant that if the Claimant had mentioned that he had asthma that she would have arranged for a risk assessment to be done as they have done with all staff with underlying health conditions during the COVID pandemic. We accept that evidence of Miss Sprake and find that nothing was mentioned by the Claimant about his asthma at this 3 month review meeting.[5]The written document of the probation assessment is on pages 65 and 66 of the bundle. The probationary objectives agreed were to continue with competency pack and to complete induction checklist. Miss Sprake wrote in her comments as follows “I have discussed the importance of team work with Shahid and shift tasks responsibility and priority. Having had this discussion I hope to see an improvement moving forward. We have identified areas for training and I have encouraged Shahid to discuss any tasks that he had not been shown”. The employees comments are left blank but on that page Mr Mohammed has signed and dated 11 December 2019. Miss Sprake said that she wrote the comments because of the attitude of the Claimant to colleagues which was not good for example during a busy time the Claimant would be sitting down laughing, he would leave the unit and walk out and not do tasks. So there were concerns about matters prior to the Claimant going on leave and his professionalism in work. Although the Claimant’s attendance was excellent it was his attitude to staff as Miss Sprake described and leaving before the end of a shift without telling the other staff. We accept the evidence of Miss Sprake that there were reports about the attitude of the Claimant before she held the 3 month review and that she had genuine concerns about the matters that had been raised hence the remarks on the 3 month assessment form. Case Number: 1601374/2020 4[6]If the Claimant had mentioned his asthma at the 3 month review meeting there would be no reason why Miss Sprake should not have recorded that fact and taken appropriate steps as she described regarding risk assessments.[7]The Claimant raised concerns that the document of his 3 month assessment had been only disclosed to himself shortly before the hearing. The Claimant said that if he had the time he could have called colleagues or asked colleagues to confirm his work attitude and to give evidence about matters such as a colleague leaving because of bullying and that he had completed everything such as online modules in a timely manner. Whilst it is unfortunate that there was late disclosure of a document there was no issue with the document as such and the Tribunal considers that the evidence of the Respondents shows that there is no intention to dismiss the Claimant at this time of the review when merely that there was a need to improve some of the aspects of the Claimant’s performance.[8]The Claimant says that in January 2020 whilst on a break in the staff room he came across a notice board with a paper outlining all staff dates for review. His name was on it for March 2020 and that he approached two senior members of staff to discuss the matter they said that that showed that there would be a pay review and that he would not be dismissed because the pay rise was in line with the contract and that he would be permanent. The document is on page 62 of the bundle and is dated March 2020 and is a letter to the Claimant to say the 2020 salary review has taken place and the basic salary is being increased and will be effective from 1 April 2020. The date on the document is March 2020 not January 2020. It is unlikely this document was displayed on a notice board and is more likely to have been a letter sent to the Claimant personally. The Tribunal accepts that the Claimant may have thought that he had passed the review but he was still on probation and there was going to be a further review, the six month review, upon his return from leave. We find his probation period had not ended at this time. We accept the evidence of Miss Sprake that this letter was a standard letter going out to every employee but that did not mean that the Claimant had passed his 6 month probation review.[9]The Claimant went on a four week annual leave, together with two weeks of unpaid leave, and went to Pakistan. It seems that the Claimant returned to the United Kingdom from Pakistan on 14 March 2020. Had this period of extended leave meant that the Claimant due back to work with the Respondents on 30 March 2020. However on 27 March 2020 Miss Sprake telephoned the Claimant as she had received a phone call on 26 March from someone reporting virus symptoms, that someone being a nurse at the unit who had mistakenly thought the caller was the Claimant. In fact Miss Sprake had sent an email copied to Miss Webber to the Claimant about Case Number: 1601374/2020 5 virus symptoms and about booking a test. The Claimant replied on 26 March 2020 to say I think you need to ask Ferdi (nurse) again!! Because it wasn’t me who rang him today!!!. The phone call from Miss Sprake was recorded by the Claimant on 27 March 2020, unknown to Miss Sprake, and the Claimant played the recording to the Tribunal. In that recording Miss Sprake apologises to the Claimant for the mix up and her tone is not harsh or in any way harassing. Miss Sprake makes enquiries to establish and clarify the position and there is nothing from that recording which is indicative of the Respondents wanting to paint the Claimant in a bad light or in any way be unduly critical of the Claimant. The Tribunal notes that the Claimant said that he had been back about two weeks in the United Kingdom and was asked if he had any symptoms to which he said he had a dry cough, an irritation with a sore throat. It is not something that is continuous but now and again. The Claimant was advised to get in touch with NHS 111 and that he could email them about being back on Tuesday to work. In relation to being in contact with the virus there was reference to not being aware of it but to let the Respondents know.[10]On 28 March 2020 the Claimant sent an email to Miss Sprake to say that he got through to 111 and that they have said that he needs to go into self-isolation that is lockdown. He says “can’t go out, can’t go to doctor, got to get others to do shopping and pick up any medicines. They’re giving me a self-isolation note to pass over to my employer which is attached with this email. I hope it’s not life threatening!!!” The document attached was headed isolation note with a start date of 28 March 2020 and an end date to 10 April 2020 and says that it confirms that “the person named above has been told to self-isolate by the NHS website, NHS 111 or a healthcare professional. This is because they live with someone who has symptoms of coronavirus”. On 28 March 2020 Miss Sprake emailed the Claimant to say “so your cough started Wednesday so your 7 days isolation will be up Tuesday so you will have to be off Tuesday then back in for next scheduled shift will call you Monday”. Miss Sprake tried to contact the Claimant on Monday 30 March 2020 but the Claimant did not answer his phone. On 30 March 2020 the Claimant sent an email to Miss Webber saying just to update since he had an email last week from his manager Alice from Newport Unit which had Miss Webber’s email address attached with it. The Claimant says he has been told to self-isolate for 14 days and attaches a note. Miss Webber replied to say that the reported absence was due to symptoms not because someone you live with someone who has symptoms which the attached note is for so you only need to isolate for 7 days not 14 days. We will expect you back at work week commencing 6 April 2020. Miss Webber said that in relation to the isolation note that the guidance at that time was for self-isolation for the person and family for 7 days not 14 days. Miss Webber’s opinion was that the 14 day isolation fell outside the guidance. Miss Webber questioned the document and asked for clarity. On 30 March the Claimant emailed Miss Webber to say after talking with the person on 111 he never Case Number: 1601374/2020 6 had symptoms at all and his sore throat was due to him drinking cold water. It is his partner she had diarrhoea with a temperature from last week that is why they have said you need to stay isolated for 14 days. Miss Webber replied to say that he reported in with a cough last Wednesday and as this was your symptom you will only need to self-isolate for 7 days from then, you did not mention any symptoms from other family members. We will expect you back this week.[11]On 1 April 2020 Miss Sprake emailed the Claimant to say that she had left a voicemail yesterday and to please confirm that he would be returning to work this coming Friday. (3 April 2020).[12]On 2 April 2020 there was a further email from Miss Sprake to the Claimant saying that she had emailed and left voicemails to which the Claimant had failed to respond and that as part of the contract of employment the Claimant was required to make contact with the Respondents and that he was due in work tomorrow and also as “part of the absence policy the Claimant was required to ring and speak to myself each morning.” The Claimant responded to that email to say that he was in self-isolation so “no he would not be in tomorrow.” On 2 April 2020 Miss Webber sent an email to the Claimant asking him to ring Alice on her mobile phone as soon as possible as there is a question concerning his absence they require clarity on before it can be approved and paid. The Claimant’s email to Miss Sprake copied to Miss Webber saying that he has been told there was a need for clarity before he can be paid. He says that he was still on leave unpaid when he was called in the middle of the week but his leave ended on 28 February. On request he got in touch with NHS 111 after which he was told that he needed to self-isolate for the next 14 days. The Claimant says you can’t start mark my sick pay from the day I was on leave. The Claimant says you saying that I called in now why would I be phoning to report sickness when I’m still on leave. Now I’m following advice from a professional I’ve been made to feel like I’m in the wrong. As a Senior Manager you should know better than this. Where the Claimant says that where he is standing this looks more like workplace bullying harassment. The Claimant says that he is coming back once his 14 days are up and “if that ain’t up to your company standards then I’m convinced that it comes down to paying me sick pay “then don’t” is that enough clarity”.[13]Miss Webber emailed the Claimant on 2 April 2020 and referred to his email and said they were trying to ascertain clarity on the reason for absence as he had provided two different reasons. Miss Webber says you must appreciate that we have a duty of care to ensure we can staff the unit and that we are managing all staff absence with fairness and equality. Alice has asked you for further information as I have myself and this response is rude, unprofessional and wholly unnecessary. We will discuss this with you on your return. Please ensure to notify the unit of your return date in advance Case Number: 1601374/2020 7 so any extended cover can be arranged. In the interim Miss Webber says she will refer the response to HR.[14]Miss Webber described the email as being shocking to her and that in her 40 years as a nurse never received such rudeness or abruptness in an email. Miss Webber had a conversation with Miss Sprake about the matter and all aspects of the probationary period. Miss Sprake and Claire Gill-Martin of HR tried to call the Claimant to discuss the email he had sent but he did not respond. As the Claimant had less than 2 years service and after a discussion with HR Miss Sprake took the decision to dismiss the Claimant on the basis that he had failed his probation and emailed him on 7 April to confirm her decision. In that email of 7 April 2020 Miss Sprake says “I have tried to make contact with you by telephone call but as you have not answered the telephone calls, I’m writing to inform you that I have undertaken a review of all aspects of your performance during your probation period. I feel that your attitude towards your colleagues has been entirely unacceptable. For this reason I have made the decision that you have failed your probation. Therefore your employment is terminated by reason of dismissal due to a failed probation period. Your dismissal will take effect immediately so you are not required to work your notice period. I can confirm that your leaving date including one week notice pay as per your contract of employment will be 14 April 2020 and all terms and benefits associated with your employment will cease.” In that email the Claimant is told that he has a right of appeal against the decision to dismiss him.[15]On 8 April the Claimant sent an email to Jodie Hall, the Appeals Officer, to appeal the decision. Miss Hall acknowledged on 8 April receipt of the appeal and said that she would be in touch in due course to arrange the next steps. On 14 April 2020 Miss Hall wrote to the Claimant to say due to the COVID-19 outbreak we are unable to arrange a face to face meeting therefore invited the Claimant to submit grounds of appeal in writing to herself. The grounds of appeal will be reviewed by Jane Tyler, Clinical Quality Manager and once Jane has reviewed and conducted any necessary investigation a decision will be made and the outcome of the appeal will be confirmed in writing. The Claimant was asked to submit his grounds of appeal by 28 April 2020.[16]On 25 April 2020 the Claimant emailed his grounds of appeal to Jodie Hall. (Page 52 and 53 of the bundle). The grounds of appeal contain a number of bullet points. The Claimant says that he has maintained the highest standards in his work. His commitment is second to none to his job. On an audit day he stayed behind without asking for time back or payment in overtime. He had completed an online module prior to going on leave. The Claimant queries why the company terminated his contract in April when his probation period was due to end in March. The Claimant says without Case Number: 1601374/2020 8 additional information as to what specific events and whom towards were involved or even timelines he could not comment any more.[17]On 6 May 2020 Miss Tyler wrote to the Claimant to say her decision was to uphold the outcome which resulted in his employment being terminated. Miss Tyler says that she can confirm there were no concerns in relation to his sickness record you are working your contracted weekly hours and undertaken the required training modules. The reason for the failed probation was due to concerns with regards to his attitude. Reference was made to 11 December 2019 probationary review. Other concerns were not documented. Concerns in relation to attitude were further compounded in the email that the Claimant sent to Alice on 2 April and the tone of that email. It was noted that the last working shift in the unit was 14 February 2020 followed by a period of 4 weeks annual leave which was extended further by two weeks unpaid leave due to the COVID-19 situation impacting. Therefore the decision taken in relation to the probation period was managed in a timely manner at the earliest opportunity given the Claimant’s leave away from the United Kingdom and the impact of COVID-19.[18]The Claimant has produced documentation in medical notes which say that he was diagnosed with depression, anxiety in May 2020. The Claimant says this is because of the discrimination and effect it has had upon his personal life.[19]It should be noted that on 14 April 2020 a FitNote for the purposes of social security or statutory sick pay was given to the Claimant which said that he was not fit for work because of an exacerbation of asthma and that the period was extended to 21 April 2020. A further note was produced on 21 April 2020 for a further period of unfitness for work until 27 April 2020 because of asthma. Neither of these documents were forwarded as part of the appeal by the Claimant or referred to.[20]The Claimant accepted that he said nothing in his appeal about his asthma. The Claimant said that he was arguing about the bogus charges about his attitude, how come that they had made out that he was unprofessional. The sick notes about asthma sent to his other employer, The Royal Mail. They were not disclosed to the Respondents.[21]The Claimant says that he said nothing about his asthma because he was not asked by the company about it. The Claimant said that the company kept going on about his cough and they refused to accept what he was saying. He could only answer questions he was asked. They disregarded his health and just wanted him to come in and they kept going on at him. This was bullying and harassment. What the Respondents wanted him to do was to disregard advice. Case Number: 1601374/2020 9[22]The Claimant said in his oral evidence that he explained over the phone about his cough but the high temperature was a family member. However in the email correspondence there is reference to the person being his partner. The Claimant explained that he may have been disorientated in relation to giving this answer.The Law
[23]Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is headed Discrimination arising from disability. The Section says that a person(a) (A) discriminates against disabled person(b) (B) if (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This sub-section does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.[24]Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is headed Direct Discrimination and says that a person(a) (A) discriminates against another(b) (B) because of a protected characteristic, that A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.[25]Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 is headed duty to make adjustments it imposes a duty under a first requirement which is where a requirement where a provision criteria or practice of A puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled take all steps as is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. Section 21 says that a failure to comply with the requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments. And A discriminates against a disabled person if A fails to comply with that duty in relation to that person.[26]Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, headed burden of proof, says in Sub Section 2 “if there are facts from which the Court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the Court must hold that the contravention occurred.” Sub Section 3 says “but sub section 2 does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision”. Submissions[27]Although as already referred to at a previous Case Management Hearing the issue was of discrimination arising from disability, in the written statement of evidence of the Claimant he says that he is bringing claims also of direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. These would appear to be based upon the same facts which are included in the discrimination arising from disability matter except that Case Number: 1601374/2020 10 the Claimant clarified in his oral evidence that a reasonable adjustment would have been for him not to be close to patients and to keep him away from vulnerable patients and not to expose him to them.[28]The Claimant said that the Respondents had knowledge through Alice Sprake about his asthma. He followed the Respondents instructions by contacting NHS 111. Lockdown then happened and nobody knew what was happening and as a result of being asked questions NHS told him he was in a high category. The Claimant says he mentioned medication in an email which should have sounded alarm bells. The bottom line is that Miss Webber had an inkling about 14 days of shielding and they wanted him in, but they still wanted him in work despite the note. His main priority in the appeal was clearing his name not to mention about his asthma. He had never refused to go back. He did not know what was being asked of him. The Respondents have hidden behind allegations of bullying and that he had to deal with difficult family situation with his parents as well as dealing with depression and he had difficulties dealing with the reality of how someone could be dismissed in his circumstances. The unit he was working in was understaffed and they knew he had no children so they were putting pressure on him. He did not disrespect the Respondents, it was they that were rude to him. It does not make sense the allegations that they made against him about unprofessionalism and his work. He could have brought witnesses to say about his work. They were overseas workers working in awful conditions and they knew he would expose their practices. His dismissal was a pretext.[29]The Respondents submitted that the claims ought to be dismissed. The first part of the claim for discrimination arising from disability has to fail because the Claimant has conceded he never told them because of his asthma. The Respondents were not aware of his asthma. The Respondents have a number of employees with asthma and have carried out risk assessments, some 22 employees in fact. It is clear in any event that the Claimant was dismissed because of the end of his probationary period and his rude email. There is insufficient evidence to pass any burden of proof Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 to the Respondents. There are no facts on which discrimination could be inferred. The discussions about 14 days had nothing to do with asthma. There is no claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments in the claim form and there is no claim for direct disability discrimination which is now made on the first day to which objections are made.Conclusions
[30]The Tribunal does not accept that the Claimant informed the Respondents on at least two occasions about the fact that he had asthma namely on two occasions in 2019. There is nothing in the email exchange at any time about Case Number: 1601374/2020 11 reference to asthma at times when it would be expected that he would mention it, for example in his appeal. There is nothing at the time that he was telling individuals about his reason for absence that there is any reference about asthma. There is no reason why the Respondents would not have taken steps to record the fact that he had asthma and/or to carry out appropriate risk assessments given the circumstances and the work in which they are involved. Their own knowledge about the risks of COVID as emerged would have been such that they would have carried out such assessments and taken appropriate action. We accept the evidence of Miss Sprake and also Miss Webber about their commitment to ensuring health and safety of their employees and that they would have undertaken such steps. We note that 22 of the employees are recorded as having asthma and so this is not something which is unusual or out of the ordinary as far as the Respondents are concerned. Further, having heard the recording there is clear evidence of the appropriateness of communications between themselves and the Claimant and the fact that they were seeking to clarify the basis upon which the Claimant might be affected himself or otherwise as a result of his holiday to Pakistan. The fact that the Claimant refers to the restrictions such as collecting medicine does not as the Claimant says lead to the conclusion that that is medicine for himself or should be read like that. It is against the background where the Claimant was saying that he himself was not suffering but his partner. Although as noted in his oral evidence he talked about a family member not his partner. As seen in the emails about the rota system when the Claimant was asked whether he wished to extend his time, and his reply in relation to the queries from the Respondents regarding his absence, the Claimant is not a person who is unafraid to express his views and to tell the Respondents how they should be conducting their business. It is inconceivable that the Claimant would not have mentioned his absences due to asthma and risks opposed by his asthma at any time during the matters with which the Tribunal is concerned that led to his dismissal and after his dismissal. Given the discrepancy between what the Respondents understood to be the reason for his absence, namely his cough, and then the note which referred to someone living with him it was not unreasonable for the Respondents to question the absence and the reason for it and to seek clarification and further to take issue about whether in fact the note was accurate about whether it was 14 days that he was required to isolate. The full circumstances of the discussion that the Claimant had with NHS 111 was not revealed due to the lack of information being provided and clarity by the Claimant himself. The Claimant was not responding to telephone calls for direct conversations at this point.[31]There is evidence as shown in the 3 month review that there were issues with some parts of the performance of the Claimant. The reference in the dismissal and appeal letters to performance do not come entirely unexpected or without a foundation which had been brought to the attention Case Number: 1601374/2020 12 of the Claimant. We accept the evidence of the Respondents that the reason for his dismissal had nothing to do with asthma, of which they did not know anything, nor could they have reasonably expected to know about his asthma, but rather his dismissal had to do with his attitude as expressed on occasions and noted by Miss Sprake which is further compounded by the tone of the email that he sent which Miss Webber considered to be shocking.[32]We reject the suggestion of the Claimant that his dismissal was linked with the fact that it was an understaffed unit and that it was a pretext to get rid of him because he was shielding at this time. There is no evidence that the Claimant was technically shielding at this time and the issue about whether 14 days was appropriate or not was unfortunately not the subject of further discussions from the Claimant to the Respondents. We accept the Respondents evidence that the email from the Claimant which suggested bullying and harassment together with the concerns that they had about the Claimant was the reason for the dismissal. The decision had nothing to do with the Claimant’s disability. There was no evidence of direct discrimination because of his disability. Further we find that there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments since the Claimant never actually returned to his work nor was there any discussion about how he should return to be kept away from other patients. There was no knowledge about his disability on the part of the Respondents. In relation to the identified claim of discrimination arising from disability the Claimant was not treated unfavourably by the conduct of managers in asking the Claimant to return to work within 7 days contrary to medical advice and dismissing the Claimant. The Respondents were proportionate and had a legitimate aim in seeking to clarify with the Claimant the reasons why he should be self-isolating for 14 days and not 7 days as was the understanding of Miss Webber at that time in relation to guidance from the Government.[33]In the circumstances the claims for disability discrimination are dismissed.