Transport for London and E Norman
Case Summary
The claimant, Mr. M.Carruthers, brought complaints of disability discrimination against Transport for London and Emma Norman but was unsuccessful in all claims. The tribunal found that the complaints were not well-founded and dismissed the case.
Key Issues
- •unfavourable treatment for something arising in consequence of his disability
- •breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments
- •indirect disability discrimination
- •harassment related to disability
- •victimisation
Claim Types
Decision Text
1 of 52 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. M.Carruthers Respondents: 1) Transport for London 2) Emma Norman Heard at:East London Tribunal Hearing Centre On: 24, 25, 26, 27 June and 1 July 2025 Before:District Judge Ross (sitting as an Employment Judge) Members:Ms. S. Harwood Mr. P. Lush Appearances For the claimant: Mr. O. Lawrence, Counsel For the respondents: Ms. K. Minto, Counsel JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1.Each of the following complaints of discrimination are not well- founded and are dismissed: 1.1.Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability; 1.2.Indirect disability discrimination; 1.3.unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; 1.4.harassment related to disability; 1.5.victimisation. 2.The Claim is dismissed. 2of52 REASONS Introduction 1The Claimant was employed as a Project Manager by the First Respondent between 28 November 2022 and 9 August 2023. The Second Respondent was his line manager until 26 May 2023. 2By a Claim presented on 22 September 2023, the Claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination under sections 15, 19, 20 -21, 26 and 27 Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”). This followed periods of Early Conciliation between 12 July and 23 August 2023 and on 22 September 2023. The Hearing 3At a Preliminary Hearing on 18 December 2023, Employment Judge Crosfill had made detailed case management orders in the presence of the parties. The parties agreed that 5 days was adequate to determine liability and, if required, remedy. 4Regrettably, by the start of the hearing, the parties had not complied with certain case management directions in respect of preparation for the final hearing. There was no essential reading list, despite the bundle being 1309 pages long (plus additions added during the hearing), and there was no timetable for the hearing...
Employer
Employment Details
- Industry
- Finance
Case Details
- Case Number
- 3201728/2023
- Decision Date
- 23/07/2025
- Published
- 03/09/2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- District Judge Ross