Disability; justification; an employer cannot justify discrimination if they failed to consider the effect of the disability.
Disability; definition; established the four questions: impairment, adverse effect, substantial, long-term.
Disability; definition; the ability to do things with difficulty does not mean the person is not disabled.
Disability; justification; the test for justifying disability discrimination is objective, not the 'band of reasonable responses'.
Duty to make reasonable adjustments; the employer must consider adjustments even if the employee is absent.
Discrimination; disability; the tribunal must not act as a medical expert; it must rely on medical evidence.
Discrimination; recruitment; asking questions about health/disability in interview can be discriminatory.
Discrimination; victimisation; a bad reference given because of a previous discrimination claim is unlawful.
Disability; definition; the time to assess disability is the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
Disability; the duty to make adjustments can include transferring an employee to a higher-grade post without competitive interview.
Disability; EU definition; disability is a limitation which hinders full and effective participation in professional life.
Reasonable adjustments; burden of proof. The claimant must identify the adjustment contended for in sufficient detail for the respondent to understand its broad nature; once she has done so, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the adjustment was not reasonable. The claimant is not required to do more than identify the proposed adjustment, and need not have proposed it before the tribunal hearing. The duty is not confined to considering suggestions made by the disabled person.
Disability; assessment; the comparison is with the 'average' person in the population, not the average colleague.
Disability; definition; 'likely' to recur means 'could well happen', a lower threshold than 'more probable than not'.
Disability; defines 'clinical depression' vs 'adverse life reaction'; symptoms characteristic of depression lasting 12+ months usually qualify as a disability.
Disability; definition; 'disability' includes conditions that require a reduction in working hours (curable or not).
Disability; 'substantial' adverse effect means an effect that is 'more than minor or trivial'.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; absence triggers; attendance management policies can place disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage even if applied 'equally'.
Knowledge of disability; knowledge is not automatically imputed to decision-makers; the focus must be on the mental process of the person making the decision.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; pay protection; maintaining an employee's higher salary after redeployment to a lower-level role can be a reasonable adjustment.
Disability discrimination; s.15 EqA; provides a definitive roadmap for assessing 'discrimination arising from disability' and the 'something' leading to detriment.
Disability; s.15 EqA 2010; whistleblowing. The EAT (Langstaff P) held that a Tribunal must clearly identify (1) what the 'something arising in consequence of' the disability is, and (2) whether the unfavourable treatment was applied because of that 'something'. The causal chain between the disability and the 'something arising' may be indirect but must be established; a mere assertion of connection is insufficient. The case also addresses the interaction between s.15 claims and whistleblowing detriment where the same acts are relied upon.
Disability; stress; long-term stress reactions to adverse life events may not amount to a mental impairment if they are just an 'entrenched reaction'.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA; justification. Dismissal of a teacher on long-term sickness absence was disproportionate where the employer could have waited a little longer for the medical position to clarify; proportionality requires considering whether a less severe measure would have achieved the aim. A dismissal that is disproportionate under s.15 will generally also be unreasonable under s.98(4) ERA 1996, though the band of reasonable responses remains the unfair dismissal standard.
Discrimination arising from disability; causation. For s.15 EqA a mere link between disability-related absence and dismissal is not enough: where the absence was only the occasion on which the employer realised it could manage without the post, the absence was context rather than an effective or operative cause.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA 2010. Section 15(1)(a) requires only an objective causal connection between the disability and the "something" that led to the unfavourable treatment; the employer need not be aware that the something arose in consequence of the disability. Knowledge under s.15(2) bites on the disability itself, not on the causal link [36]-[39]. A tribunal deciding justification under s.15(1)(b) makes its own objective assessment and is not confined to the material the employer had, so a finding that dismissal was reasonable for s.98(4) purposes does not determine proportionality.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA; unfavourable treatment requires placing a hurdle, obstacle, or disadvantage in front of the employee, rather than merely failing to provide an even greater benefit.
Disability; perception; it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they are *perceived* to have a disability.
Disability; menopause; tribunal erred in holding that severe menopausal symptoms did not amount to a disability.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA; justification. It is the outcome (the dismissal), not the employer's process, that must be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — but an employer that led no evidence of its decision-makers considering less discriminatory alternatives will struggle to establish proportionality. Dismissal was disproportionate where a work trial in another role was not properly evaluated. Protecting public resources and reducing the strain on other employees were legitimate aims.
Disability; recruitment; duty to make adjustments arose where an autistic applicant requested not to use an online form.
Flexible working; indirect discrimination; a rejected flexible working appeal can be a 'disadvantage' even if later granted.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA; Pnaiser causation; consistency. Where two s.15 complaints rest on the same 'something arising' (long-term sickness absence) and the same decision-maker's erroneous belief, an ET cannot allow one and dismiss the other on inconsistent reasoning: it erred by failing to consider that unfavourable treatment may have multiple causes and by misstating the 'something arising' differently between the two claims, contrary to Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170 at [31]. Appeal and cross-appeal allowed and both claims remitted for fresh consideration by reference to the same 'something'.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; failure to offer a trial period in an alternative role can be a failure to make adjustments.
Sex Discrimination; sport; interpretation of s.195 Equality Act regarding transgender participation in single-sex sports.
Amendment; EAT (HHJ Auerbach) dismissed appeal against refusal to add disability discrimination claims (ss.15, 20–21 EqA) for depression and anxiety. The proposed amendment was not a mere relabelling — it introduced wholly new claims that would materially enlarge the legal and factual enquiry, requiring determination of disability status (s.6), whether the respondent knew or ought to have known, disclosure of medical records, additional witnesses, and a further preliminary hearing. The EJ properly distinguished between treatment causing mental ill health (going to remedy) and a pre-existing underlying disability (a new area of enquiry). The EAT confirmed the correct approach is to focus on the extent of new areas of enquiry (per Abercrombie) rather than formal Selkent categorisation, and that the balance of hardship was correctly struck: the respondent faced disproportionate burdens while the claimant already had alternative remedies under live claims. The delay — four months after gaining knowledge of potential disability — was held to be unreasonable even for a litigant in person, given her demonstrated ability to articulate detailed claims.
Disability; discrimination arising; confirmed the causal link test for s.15 claims.
Discrimination arising from disability; s.15 EqA; causation. The EAT held the tribunal erred by asking whether disability was the sole or main cause of the claimant's misconduct (an outburst when a training venue was inaccessible to his wheelchair): it is enough that the disability was an effective cause — one cause among others. Misconduct produced by indignation arising from disability is capable of 'arising in consequence of' it.
Unfair dismissal; discrimination arising from disability; a manager dismissed for using the full form of a racial slur while asking a genuine question during race education training succeeded in unfair dismissal and s.15 EqA claims, his dyslexia having affected his choice of words under pressure. Awarded approximately £486,000. A first-instance illustration of the band of reasonable responses applied to language used without malice in a training context.
Sex Discrimination; 'Pink IPA' marketing campaign intended to highlight inequality was found to optionally discriminate against men.