Brent Council wins disability discrimination employment tribunal

Former highway engineer Sayed Yusuf, from Canada Water, said he will appeal after losing his claim that he was forced out of his job after a serious assault caused life-changing injuries.

During tearful testimony last December, he told Watford Tribunal Court that his council department had a culture of prejudice against disabled employees, described in front of him by one manager as “dead wood”.

But the council's tribunal sided with Brent Council, which had suggested Mr Yusuf was "workshy and deliberately and unnecessarily disruptive".

In a judgment, dated May 18, the panel said evidence showed Mr Yusuf “refusing to do work” and making “constant reference to his mental health as a blanket excuse for evading his obligations”.

Mr Yusuf rejected the judgment and said he would appeal.

"It's completely unfair and unjust," he said. "It's unbelievable."

In 2016, Mr Yusuf was attacked in the street. He required seven hours of corrective surgery and was left with chronic back pain and PTSD.

He told the court that after his injuries necessitated a long period of sick leave, then a phased return to work, his managers set him up to fail to they could get rid of him.

He claimed they refused to make reasonable adjustments for his injuries, demeaned him and gave him faulty equipment, then catalogued his resulting low output in a raft of written complaints.

He accused Brent, among other things, of disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

But the tribunal panel rejected all of his claims, despite finding that "an absence of robust management" meant it had taken "too long" to deal with concerns raised by Mr Yusuf.

“We accept the evidence of the [council’s] witnesses that Mr Yusuf was awkward, prone to circumvent difficult questions and bombarded his managers and HR with irrelevant accusations and documents," the panel wrote.

The judgment said the incidents Mr Yusuf claimed added up to a “conspiracy” against him included “mild criticism”, “measured and appropriate” emails, and “an office tiff”.

“The tribunal did not find that Mr Yusuf was a reliable witness,” it said.

“A common theme in this case was the hostility that Mr Yusuf displayed to his managers and some colleagues.

“Virtually every management instruction or HR request or any slip or omission was regarded by Mr Yusuf as a deliberate and co-ordinated response by his employers to muzzle him or to torment him.

Sayed Yusuf's case against Brent Council was heard late last year at the Watford Employment Tribunal (Image: Google Streetview)

“Anything that did not support Mr Yusuf’s case was regarded with distrust, which he said was false, either written or said with the express intention to discredit him.

“We could see no merit in this allegation, nor in his approach to the case.”

The panel suggested that continuing to employ Mr Yusuf would have been a waste of taxpayers' money, given his low output, "for a public sector employer seemingly in continual funding crisis”.

After the Covid pandemic, the council told the tribunal, the highways department “bore a disproportionate amount of service cutbacks”.

“Fewer staff were asked to do more work and Mr Yusuf stood out as a visible non-contributor,” the judgment said.

“Indeed, Mr Yusuf’s indolence increased the substantial burden on his colleagues.”

Mr Yusuf said the judgment parroted a "character assassination" by Brent Council which had destroyed his career prospects.

"They have taxpayers paying for this legal campaign against me," he said. "They are wasting taxpayers' money.

"I came to them from UCL with a master's degree and two best student awards. I went from being a cleaner to becoming an engineer. I am hard-working. Even after I suffered this assault, I continued to work.

"I really had a lot of trust in the justice system. Now I have absolutely no trust.

"I have to continue to seek justice. I will never give up. Maybe through a higher court I can get justice."

Brent Council said: “We are really pleased that having examined the full facts of the case, the court has ruled against Mr Yusuf’s claims and we welcome the judgment made today.”