N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EAT 204
L Brown v General Vending Services Ltd
9 June 2023
[2023] EAT 98
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman claimed disability discrimination after being fired. A judge said she wasn't disabled, but a higher court disagreed. The higher court said the first judge didn't understand the rules about disability and sent the case back to a different judge to decide again.
Key Facts
- •Mrs Brown worked for General Vending Services Ltd from April 30, 2018, to July 10, 2019.
- •She claimed disability discrimination following her dismissal.
- •Mrs Brown had a physical shoulder impairment.
- •The Employment Tribunal found she was not disabled at the time of dismissal.
- •The EAT considered five grounds of appeal.
- •General Vending Services Ltd was in liquidation and did not participate in the appeal.
Legal Principles
Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010, section 6
Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relevant to the definition of disability
Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relevant to the definition of disability (2011), paragraphs B7 and B9
Distinction between coping and avoidance strategies in relation to disability
Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relevant to the definition of disability (2011), paragraphs B7 and B9
"Substantial" means more than minor or trivial.
Equality Act 2010, section 212
"Long-term" is defined in Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, paragraph 2
Outcomes
Appeal allowed
The Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the question of whether the claimant was a disabled person, specifically regarding the distinction between coping and avoidance strategies (paragraphs B7 and B9 of the 2011 Guidance) and its assessment of a medical letter.
Tribunal's finding that the claimant was not disabled quashed
Insufficiently rigorous reasoning in assessing the medical evidence and application of guidance on coping/avoidance strategies.
Case remitted to a different tribunal
The EAT could not substitute a finding as further fact-finding was required on the claimant's activities and application of legal principles.