Christopher Rodger v Forestry and Land Scotland
[2024] EAT 172
Hafeez Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions
10 June 2024
[2024] EAT 84
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker claimed his employer discriminated against him because of his depression and a blood condition. The judge only looked at a short period of time to decide if he had a disability, ignoring other relevant times when the discrimination allegedly happened. The appeal court said the judge made a mistake and should look at the whole period the worker claimed discrimination occurred.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Appellant) brought disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 based on PNH and depression.
- •PNH disability was conceded; depression disability was contested.
- •Employment Tribunal (ET) focused on a narrow 'Relevant Period' (22-25 September 2020) to assess depression disability.
- •Claimant acted in person.
- •ET found Claimant was not disabled by depression during the Relevant Period.
- •Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
The time for assessing disability under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 is the date of the alleged discriminatory acts.
Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729
A tribunal must address all elements of the statutory definition of disability (impairment, adverse effect, substantiality, long-term effect including recurrence).
Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd [2022] IRLR 159
Medical evidence is not required to prove disability, but a tribunal may not be satisfied of an impairment's existence or causation without it.
Igweike v TSB Bank plc [2020] IRLR 267
The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises when the employer can take reasonable steps to avoid disadvantage.
Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] ICR 1194
Employment tribunals must give adequate reasons for their decisions (Meek principle).
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on Ground 1 (incorrect period for assessing disability).
The ET focused on the wrong time period for assessing the disability, failing to consider the dates of the alleged discriminatory acts across 2020-2022. The ET did not adequately ensure the Claimant understood the implications of limiting the assessment to September 2020, particularly given he was a litigant in person. The ET's assertion that it would have reached the same decision considering the correct period was rejected by the EAT.
Appeal dismissed on Grounds 2-8.
The EAT addressed various aspects of the ET's decision-making, finding no errors in the ET's handling of the Claimant's evidence, assessment of the long-term nature of the impairment, consideration of overlapping symptoms, sufficiency of reasons, application of the burden of proof, and assessment of the medical evidence. Although some procedural aspects were criticized, these were deemed immaterial to the overall outcome.