Christopher Rodger v Forestry and Land Scotland
[2024] EAT 172
Simon Pipe v Coventry Higher Education
4 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 191
Court of Appeal
A university lecturer with ADHD claimed disability discrimination after failing to get promoted. The court decided the university's decision wasn't because of his disability, but mainly because there were no suitable job openings at the time. Even if he had been better at research (a key requirement), he still wouldn't have gotten the job because there was no funding. The court also found the university had no legal obligation to make special adjustments to promote him.
Key Facts
- •Mr Pipe, a former BBC journalist and grade 6 lecturer at Coventry University, applied for promotion to grade 7 three times (2017-2019) and twice requested promotion as a reasonable adjustment (2020).
- •His applications were unsuccessful, leading to several claims at the Employment Tribunal (ET) under the Equality Act 2010.
- •The ET dismissed the claims, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) partially allowed the appeal, remitting the indirect disability and age discrimination claims (2020) to the ET.
- •Mr Pipe appealed the EAT's dismissal of the remaining claims to the Court of Appeal.
- •Mr Pipe suffers from ADHD and sleep disorder, which the University acknowledged as a disability under the 2010 Act.
Legal Principles
Discrimination arising from disability (Section 15(1)(a) Equality Act 2010): Unfavourable treatment must be 'because of something arising in consequence of' the disability.
Equality Act 2010, Section 15(1)(a)
Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (Section 15(1)(b) & 19(2)(d) Equality Act 2010): Treatment must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Equality Act 2010, Section 15(1)(b) and 19(2)(d)
Indirect discrimination (Section 19 Equality Act 2010): A provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
Equality Act 2010, Section 19
Reasonable adjustments (Sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010): Duty to take reasonable steps to avoid a substantial disadvantage for a disabled person.
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20-21
Justification of PCPs: In cases where treatment is a direct result of applying a general rule or policy, justification depends on whether the policy is justified (Buchanan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis).
Buchanan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] IRLR 918
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on all four grounds.
The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Tribunal (ET) did not err in law. The lack of a business case for a grade 7 role was a decisive factor in the rejection of Mr Pipe's applications, making the other criteria irrelevant. The ET's findings of fact were supported by evidence, and its application of legal principles was correct.