The claimant resigned after an altercation with a colleague and subsequent investigation. He said he was constructively dismissed. The ET dismissed his complaints and he appealed to the EAT arguing that: the ET erred in finding that knowledge of disability was a necessary ingredient of disability related harassment claim; continuing with a disciplinary process was discrimination arising from disability; he had not been constructively dismissed as an act of disability discrimination; the finding that his constructive dismissal was not age discrimination; the ET had misapplied the burden of proof in respect of one allegation and the ET had erred by finding that he had not adduced any evidence to explain why his ET1 had been presented late.

HHJ Feeney allowed the appeals in part. The disability-related harassment claim could not succeed on the facts as found so there was no need to analyse further the ET’s approach to any “related to” question. However, the ET had erred in failing to consider the claimant’s case that his s15 claim included the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and that the respondent may have acquired knowledge of the relevant disability during that period. Its decision on justification also could not stand. Accordingly, the s.15 claim and constructive discriminatory dismissal claim on grounds of disability had to be remitted. The ET had also been wrong to hold that the Claimant had not presented any evidence to explain why his claim had been brought late, in that it failed to take into account a passage in his witness statement and his closing submissions. The issue of time limits was also remitted for further consideration.