A disabled BMW worker was discriminated against and was misunderstood by the managers after being authorized by secret monitoring, assuming that he was increasing his back pain, a tribunal found.
Mohammad Kerita, who worked in the firm’s manufacturing factory, had to face back pain since 2017, the reading tribunal heard. In March 2023, a physiotherapist emailed the absence manager Richard Darville to say that Mr. Kerita was discontinued by her GP for two months. The physiotherapist said that he could not explain the level of pain that was being experienced by Mr. Kerita and why he remained unworthy for work.
Subsequently, Mr. Darville and HR Manager Akhil Patel directed the security firm G4 to direct the Security Firm G4S to monitor Mr. Keerita, a step described as a “highly unusual step”. An G4S operative filmed Mr. Kerita from behind, walking at a distance of three miles in about one and a half hours, the claimant never said that he could not walk.
In a report, he stated that “there was no indication that the claimant had less back, leg or shoulder pain or was facing illness or dizziness”, despite filming the face of Mr. Kerita.
The tribunal heard, Mr. Darville later approached a senior manager and received more funds for further monitoring to ensure “strong results”.
In May 2023, Mr. Kerita was dismissed for gross misconduct, including a fraudulent claim of unacceptable levels of sick pay and absence of the company.
During a disciplinary meeting, he had said that he was in the wrong field and needed mild duties, but his managers told him that no one was there and sent him home, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal found that the back pain of Mr. Kerita completed the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Judge Hawksworth stated that it could be estimated that managers “had a level of mistrust or enmity towards colleagues” with back terms, and were not ready to take their words for it that they had a back problem, or it was hurry to conclude that the person behind the back position was not honest about their symptoms “.
The judge said: “We have found that the defendant has made a perception about what the contender told him about the ability to walk and the G4S monitoring film.”
Claims of failure in proper adjustment of Shri Kerita, disability discrimination and improper dismissal were successful.
