The claimant worked as a lorry driver for the respondent company. He suffers from Type 2 diabetes and is disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (N.B. Disability in NI is governed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). He was summarily dismissed following reports that he had urinated in the loading yard of a shopping centre. The respondent alleged he had relieved himself on the pallets, yet CCTV footage was unclear.

The respondent alleged the actions of the claimant amounted to gross misconduct. The company claimed the incident resulted in a serious breach of trust and confidence, a deliberate and serious breach of H&S Regulations that could endanger others or bring the company's name into disrepute, and a serious or wilful neglect to company property.

The tribunal held the respondent failed to take the claimant’s disability into account. The claimant had been unfairly dismissed as the incident arose in connection with his disability and reinstatement was granted.

Having viewed the CCTV, the EAT held the tribunal was entitled to make the finding that it did. The CCTV was inconclusive and the respondent leapt to conclusions about unnamed and unspecified H&S Regulations.

The respondent's argument of objective justification for discrimination had been addressed adequately by the tribunal. The respondent sought to argue, on the basis that unfavourable treatment of the claimant (dismissal arising from his disability) was established, it had done enough to show that such treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Lastly, the tribunal had not erred in its approach to reinstatement. The EAT held it was unreasonable for the respondent to refuse to reinstate the claimant, stating trust and confidence in the employment relationship could be restored. The EAT upheld the decision that the claimant’s disability was the operative cause of the dismissal and the appeal was dismissed.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2018/0268_17_1312.html