Bury St Edmunds Father Awarded £15,000 By Tribunal After He Was Fired from A Subway Franchise Because He Was Autistic

Courtesy EADT: Andrew Everitt with son Bradley.

Discrimination in the workplace is an isolating and traumatic experience but a Bury St Edmunds victim has chosen to speak out after he won a tribunal case against his former employer.

For 25-year-old Andrew Everitt, who has autism, it stopped him going out and made him give up doing things he enjoyed.

“I kind of shut myself away from things as I lost a lot of confidence in everything I do,” he says.

He worked for Regal Consultancy Ltd, in Bury, a firm that supplied staff to the Subway franchise in Parkway.

A tribunal judge has just ordered Mr Everitt’s former employer to pay him £15,484 – after it ruled he was fired as a direct consequence of the fact he lives with autism.

The judge ruled he was “treated less favourably because of his disability by virtue of his dismissal”.

Mr Everitt’s manager knew about his condition, the tribunal ruled, 
yet no special measures were put in place to help him when he was asked to attend a disciplinary meeting. As a consequence of his behaviour at the meeting he was sacked.

The Bury resident, who has two children, said: “I’ve never felt like this. I worked for another Subway before the Bury one and they never made me feel as bad.”

Mr Everitt was dismissed by Regal Consultancy after a hygiene inspector visited Subway when he was there and the branch failed the evaluation. According to the judgement, he was treated worse than another member of staff also there, who does not live with autism.

Mr Everitt was diagnosed with high functioning autism by the Cambridge Lifespan Asperger Syndrome Service (CLASS) in 2013 and the tribunal noted it was likely he had the condition since childhood.

After an appeal, he was offered his job back but refused as he felt “bullied”.

Mr Everitt wanted to highlight how people with autism were sometimes ignored.

His wife Jo said: “I feel that people judge just by looking at him. People say all the time ‘he doesn’t look autistic’.”

She said the discrimination had taken its toll on her husband.

“It got to a point where he was so miserable and said ‘I don’t want to go back to work’.”

At the time of writing, Mr Everitt is still yet to receive any money from Regal Consultancy, despite the 
judge awarding the damages on November 8.

Gurdeep Sethi, director of Regal Consultancy, claims paying the £15,000 could put some of his other employees at threat.

However, he said: “The company isn’t financially viable to pay that. It’s not to say we won’t pay it. We might be working on some sort of payment plan.”

Despite the outcome of the tribunal, he insisted he was not aware of Mr Everitt’s condition beforehand, but said he had now made the interview process more “robust”.

He claimed Mr Everitt had not been discriminated against as he was promoted to team leader.

A Subway spokeswoman said: “The Subway brand is committed to maintaining a diverse and inclusive environment and does not condone discrimination of any kind.

“All stores are independently owned and operated by franchisees who handle all staffing matters. We do require franchisees to follow all local and country laws.”

ISCRE

Mr Everitt was represented by Sallie Davies, a discrimination advisor for ISCRE (Ipswich and Suffolk Council for Racial Equality). The registered charity has been backed with lottery funding.

Mrs Davies said: “[In Andrew’s case] the appeal worked but they offered Andrew reinstatement but by then he had been so hurt. The discrimination had already happened and couldn’t be put right.”

She added: “You need resilience and strength to go through a tribunal process. Underneath his calm exterior he’s using all sorts of coping mechanisms. I’m so glad he was able to stick it out.”

After the incident, Mr Everitt was called to a disciplinary meeting but was not told he could have a friend or family member with him. He was subsequently dismissed.

“For a person with autism to be subjected to fast-paced questioning without being given a chance to think, and maybe complicated questions, that’s one of the reasons why it was discriminatory,” said Mrs Davies.

“They didn’t allow Andrew to have somebody with him like a family member. That would be a normal thing you would do to reassure him.”

For more information about the Ipswich and Suffolk Council for Racial Equality, visit www.iscre.org.uk or call 01473 408111.

Timeline for Andrew Everitt’s case

October, 2014: Andrew Everitt starts work at the Subway branch in Parkway, Bury St Edmunds. The tribunal ruled in Mr Everitt’s favour that at the time of his appointment he gave his line manager a report confirming his autism diagnosis.

October 19, 2015: Mr Everitt arrives at work for his shift at 6.30am and at 9am the Subway branch is inspected. The hygiene inspector found the workplace in a “mess” with out of date food left out that had not been cleared away. This was due to a non-disabled colleague who had been on duty the previous evening.

October 20: Mr Everitt was invited to a disciplinary hearing.

October 22: The hearing was held at the Bury St Edmunds store, Mr Everitt attended alone.

October 23: Mr Everitt was informed of his dismissal by letter. It stated his explanation at the disciplinary hearing was “wholly inadequate”. The other colleague got only a warning.

October 28: Mr Everitt appealed by letter, claiming it was “unfair and unjust”.

November 4: Mr Everitt sent a letter contesting the meeting’s minutes but did not receive a response.

November 11: The appeal hearing took place and Mr Everitt attended along with his father-in-law.

December 2: Mr Sethi wrote to Mr Everitt and agreed to reinstate him at the branch. Mr Everitt’s response was that he would not go back to work at the branch after what had happened.

January 20, 2016: The case was submitted to the tribunal.

August 16-19: A hearing takes place with Judge Laidler in Bury St Edmunds

September 14: A judgement is sent to all parties. It concludes:

1. “The claimant was treated less favourably because of his disability by virtue of his dismissal.”

2. “The claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability at the disciplinary hearing and by his dismissal and the respondent has not shown that treatment to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

3. “There was a failure to make reasonable adjustments by providing that the claimant could only be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing by a trade union official or work colleague.”

4. “The claimant did not resign and the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal must therefore fail and is dismissed.”

November 8: Regal Consultancy was ordered by the judge to pay £15,484 to Mr Everitt.