J Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd
[2024] EAT 130
A Booth v Delstar International Ltd
4 May 2023
[2023] EAT 22
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. Booth's boss wrongly thought he couldn't get disability benefits and almost fired him. A court said the boss's decision was based on Mr. Booth's disability, so they sent the case back to be decided correctly.
Key Facts
- •Mr. A Booth suffered a stroke in late March 2017, resulting in a disability.
- •Delstar International Limited, Booth's employer, delayed applying for income protection benefits on his behalf.
- •Delstar's HR manager, Ms. Davis, mistakenly believed Booth was ineligible for income protection due to his permanent disability.
- •Ms. Davis also discussed Booth's potential dismissal at a meeting on February 5, 2018.
- •Booth claimed discrimination arising from disability and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Principles
Discrimination arising from disability (Section 15 Equality Act 2010): Requires consideration of two causative issues: (i) unfavorable treatment due to an identified 'something,' and (ii) whether that 'something' arose in consequence of the disability. Multiple causes are possible. The 'something' need not be the sole reason for the unfavorable treatment.
Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh [2018] IRLR 1090, paragraph 96; Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170, paragraph 31
Indirect discrimination (Section 19 Equality Act 2010): Requires a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) of potentially general application that puts a group sharing the claimant's protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not share it. The comparison must be between those with the same disability as the claimant and those without that specific disability, not simply disabled vs. non-disabled people.
Ryan v South West Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2021] ICR 555; Equality Act 2010, Section 19 and Section 6(3)
Outcomes
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in relation to the Section 15 claims (discrimination arising from disability).
The Employment Tribunal (ET) erred by inconsistently defining the 'something arising' in consequence of the disability and failing to consider multiple causes in assessing the causation of both the delay and dismissal claims. The ET's conclusions on both claims were deemed unsafe and were remitted for reconsideration.
Delstar's cross-appeal allowed in relation to the Section 19 claim (indirect discrimination).
The ET erred in its comparison of disabled and non-disabled people instead of comparing those with the claimant's specific disability to those without it. The ET failed to properly assess whether the PCP put a group sharing the claimant’s disability at a particular disadvantage.