A disabled BMW worker was discriminated against and unfairly dismissed after bosses authorised covert surveillance on him, believing he was exaggerating his back pain, a tribunal has found.

Mohamed Kerita, who worked in the firm’s manufacturing factory, suffered with back pain from 2017, the tribunal in Reading heard.

In March 2023, a physiotherapist emailed the absence manager Richard Darvill to say that Kerita had been signed off work by his GP for two months.

The physiotherapist said he could not explain the level of pain Kerita was experiencing and why he remained unfit for work, the tribunal heard.

Darvill and the HR manager Akhil Patel instructed the security firm G4S to carry out surveillance of the claimant, which the employment judge, Emma Jane Hawksworth, said was a “highly unusual step”.

A G4S surveillance operative followed Kerita and filmed him from behind walking about three miles in about one and a half hours, even though the claimant never said he could not walk, the tribunal heard.

In a report, they said that there was “no indication whatsoever that the claimant had lower back, leg or shoulder pain or was experiencing sickness or dizziness”, despite not filming Kerita’s face.

Darvill later approached a senior manager to get more funding for further surveillance to ensure a “robust outcome”, the tribunal heard.

In May 2023, Kerita was dismissed for gross misconduct, including a fraudulent claim of company sick pay and unacceptable levels of absence.

During a disciplinary meeting, he had said that he was in the wrong area and needed light duties but his managers told him there were none and sent him home, the tribunal heard.

The tribunal found that Kerita’s back pain met the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hawksworth said it could be inferred that managers “had a level of distrust or hostility towards associates with back conditions, and were unwilling to take their word for it that they had a back problem, or were quick to conclude that a person with a back condition was not being honest about their symptoms”.

The judge added: “We have found that the respondent made assumptions about what the claimant had told them about his ability to walk and about the G4S surveillance film.”

Kerita’s claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal succeeded.