Ocado Faces Dismissed Discrimination Claim After Employment Appeal Tribunal Ruling
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an employee's appeal against a tribunal's decision concerning disability discrimination claims against Ocado.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Ocado Victory
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mr. Denys Leonard-Elmaz against a prior Employment Tribunal (ET) judgment concerning his claims against Ocado Central Services Ltd. The EAT found no error of law in the ET's decisions regarding apparent bias, disability discrimination, and time limits.
Key Rulings in the Appeal
Mr. Leonard-Elmaz's appeal centred on several points. Firstly, he alleged apparent bias due to the Employment Judge and counsel for Ocado having allegedly exchanged gifts. However, both the Employment Judge and counsel confirmed no gifts were exchanged, and no mention of such an exchange occurred during the proceedings. The EAT found no evidential basis for this claim.
Secondly, the appeal challenged the ET's decision to strike out the claim relating to the claimant's start date and recruitment process as being out of time. The ET had determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The EAT agreed, finding no error in the legal principles applied or the factors considered by the ET.
Thirdly, the claimant argued that his depression constituted a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The ET had found that his depression was not "long term," meaning it was not likely to last for at least 12 months. The EAT upheld this finding, concluding that the ET applied the correct legal test and was entitled to reach its decision based on the evidence presented, which linked the depression to life events such as gambling without a clear prognosis for long-term impact.
Finally, the EAT dismissed the remaining claim of disability discrimination, finding no error of law in the ET's rejection of it.
Background to the Claims
The original ET claim included unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and wages claims, alongside the disability discrimination elements. The respondent, Ocado, had denied the claims and challenged the jurisdiction for claims relating to the recruitment process, arguing they were presented out of time. The ET had previously dismissed the oral application for recusal, struck out the recruitment claim, and found the claimant was not disabled due to depression.
The appeal was heard by Andrew Hochhauser KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court.
Read the entire judgment here: Leonard-Elmaz v Ocado Central Services Ltd EAT 41
