R1 and R2

Case Summary

The tribunal dismissed all claims including protected disclosure detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, direct discrimination on grounds of disability, and discrimination arising in consequence of disability.

The claims were dismissed following a full hearing where the tribunal found the claims were not well-founded on their merits across all categories including protected disclosure detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, and disability discrimination.

• •protected disclosure detriment contrary to section 47B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
• •automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA
• •ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 ERA
• •direct discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010
• •discrimination arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15 EQA

Case No: 2201337/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: AB Respondents: (1) R1 (2) R2 Heard at: London Central (in person) On: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 January 2025 13, 27 January, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 February 2025 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge B Smith (sitting with members) Tribunal Member Marshall Tribunal Member Darmas Representation Claimant: Ms Laura Redman (Counsel) Respondent: Ms Diya Sen Gupta (King’s Counsel) Ms Kate Balmer (Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The complaint of protected disclosure detriment contrary to section 47B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA is not well-founded and is dismissed. 3. The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 ERA is not well-founded and is dismissed. 4. The complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 (‘EQA’) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 5. The complaint of discrimination arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15 EQA is not well-founded and is dismissed. Case No: 2201337/2023 2 REASONS Introduction 1. Privacy orders (by EJ Nicole dated 5 March 2024) made under rule 50 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 apply to this Reserved Judgement and Reasons (final hearing bundle page 3726; hereafter only referred to as ‘p’ unless otherwise stated). Further privacy orders (by EJ B Smith dated 16 July 2025) were also made in order to give effect to EJ Nicolle’s privacy orders. 2. The claimant was employed latterly with as a JOB2 at the first respondent between January 2013 and his summary dismissal on 14 September 2022. The …