Where adding a new claim would add to the potentially relevant evidence, an Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse an application to amend an existing unfair dismissal claim so as to include a claim of victimisation.
There was no error of law in an Employment Tribunal decision that an applicant, who had Asperger’s syndrome, was discriminated against by being required to undergo psychometric testing in a competitive recruitment process. It was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the respondent had indirectly discriminated against the claimant, had failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments and had treated her unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability.
The incompetent handling of a grievance was insufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination.
Where there was no direct evidence of knowledge of a grievance which amounted to a protected act, in the absence of primary facts as to knowledge (or belief), the employment tribunal was not entitled to assume such knowledge (or belief) by the individual accused of victimisation.
In order to succeed in an indirect discrimination claim, it is not necessary to establish the reason for the particular disadvantage to which the group is put. The essential element is a causal connection between the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and the disadvantage suffered, not only by the group, but also by the individual.
Where a provision relating to absence management which was set out in a staff handbook had been incorporated into contracts of employment, it followed that a new policy of attendance management, which the employer had purported to introduce, was not effective to vary the terms of the employment contracts and so was not contractually binding on employees.
An expired warning can be taken into account as part of the overall circumstances under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when the employment tribunal is considering whether a dismissal was fair or unfair. The facts of the previous misconduct, the fact that a warning was given and the fact that it had expired, were all relevant matters.