In Mr J Eyles v Ministry of Defence, the Claimant brought several disability discrimination claims against his employer.  Among these, he alleged that not receiving a good luck card from his team constituted harassment.  Unfortunately, the luck was also against this employee in the Tribunal. 

The Claimant, who suffers from, amongst other conditions, post-traumatic stress disorder, and various physical health conditions, pursued claims for: direct disability discrimination; harassment related to disability; unfavourable treatment arising from disability; failure to make reasonable adjustments; and victimisation.  The Employment Tribunal recently dismissed all his claims.

Background

The Claimant worked for the Ministry of Defence from March 2020 as a Defence Accommodation Stores Manager at NATO in Belgium.  The Claimant’s role involved sourcing and providing furniture and soft furnishings to British MoD and NATO staff and their families. The Claimant was also responsible for a team in Germany for a period of time.

The Claimant filed his first claim in February 2022 and a second claim in July 2023, setting out several incidents which he argued amounted to disability discrimination.

One issue for the Tribunal to determine was when the Respondent became aware of the Claimant’s mental health conditions. The Respondent accepted that they were told of the Claimant’s physical health conditions at the start of his employment; however, there were conflicting opinions about when the Respondent became aware of the Claimant’s mental health conditions. The Claimant argued that he had again informed the Respondent of this at the start of his employment, but the Respondent said that they only became aware of the conditions when a report was logged with occupational health, at a later date.

In May 2021, following a departmental restructure, the Claimant’s team in Germany was reassigned to a different manager. The Claimant argued that this was a ‘demotion’, as the removal of his managerial responsibilities rendered the remaining elements of his role ‘menial’. The Claimant alleged that he experienced several other issues with his line manager, including being threatened with police action over accusations of fraud involving his team members, being called ‘incompetent’, and being belittled. The Claimant submitted a grievance in December 2021, alleging bullying and harassment.

Among the incidents raised in his complaints were:

• A denied request to extend his tour in September 2022, with the Respondent citing a departmental review;
• Rejection for an internal interview in November 2022;
• Withdrawal of a job offer in March 2023 on medical grounds;
• Refusal of a role extension in July 2023; and
• Not receiving a good luck card upon leaving his role in July 2023.

Tribunal Decision

Whilst it was accepted that the Claimant’s mental and physical health conditions qualified as disabilities under the Equality Act, all of the Claimant’s claims were dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant’s manager did not know the extent of his mental health conditions until after the occupational health report was filed and therefore determined that the bullying and harassment complained of in the December 2021 grievance was not related to his mental or physical conditions.

The Tribunal also said that it was ‘understandable’ that the Claimant was upset by the removal of his team in Germany from his management.  However, despite the Claimant feeling that this decision was motivated by knowledge of his mental health conditions, the Tribunal concluded that the decision was made in February 2021 and the Respondent did not learn of these conditions until December of that year.  The Tribunal did not accept that the removal of the team from his management amounted to a demotion, stating that whilst the operation that the Claimant covered did reduce in size, the Claimant’s job title and salary remained the same, and he still retained line management responsibilities elsewhere in the business.

The Tribunal determined that the giving of cards to colleagues was ‘discretionary’, as it heard evidence from employees who did not receive good luck cards in recognition of their departure. The Tribunal accepted that the reason for this was because the Claimant’s line manager was off work unwell, which meant that they ‘could not organise’ one. The Tribunal said that the lack of a good luck card was ‘subjectively’ unwanted conduct; however, the reason for the good luck card not being given was not connected to his disabilities.  As a result, it could not have been his disability that was the reason for the alleged treatment. 

The Claimant remains employed by the MoD.

Lessons for Employers

The key learnings that an employer can take from this are: –

• Keep an accurate record of management decisions and the rationale behind them in case the decisions are later challenged.

• Encourage inclusive practices and ensure policies are up to date.

• Provide training on diversity, equity and inclusion.

And, although the giving of ‘good luck cards’ is discretionary, it should be encouraged that this is done on a consistent and equal way. 

How We Can Help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.