Christopher Rodger v Forestry and Land Scotland
[2024] EAT 172
Philip McQueen v General Optical Council
10 March 2023
[2023] EAT 36
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. McQueen sued his employer for disability discrimination, saying his disability caused him to behave badly and get in trouble. The judge said his bad behavior wasn't because of his disability, so he lost the case. A higher court agreed with the judge's decision.
Key Facts
- •Philip McQueen (Claimant/Appellant) appealed part of an Employment Tribunal decision dismissing his disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •McQueen had dyslexia, Asperger's symptoms, neurodiversity, and hearing loss.
- •The Tribunal found McQueen's conduct leading to conflicts with coworkers wasn't a consequence of his disabilities, but stemmed from a short temper and resentment.
- •The Tribunal's decision was criticised for its structure and reasoning, mixing time issues with merits and conclusions before findings of fact.
- •Several incidents of conflict between McQueen and colleagues were detailed, leading to disciplinary actions and a grievance.
Legal Principles
A person discriminates against a disabled person if they treat them unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability.
Equality Act 2010, section 15(1)(a)
The disability need not be the sole or main reason for the 'something' arising in consequence; a significant or more than trivial influence suffices.
Case law cited, including IPC Media Ltd v Millar, Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe, etc.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The EAT found no error of law or principle in the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal correctly determined that McQueen's conduct wasn't caused by his disabilities, thus the question of unfavourable treatment 'because of' something arising from his disability didn't arise.