R Godfrey v Natwest Markets Plc
[2024] EAT 81
S Glasson v The Insolvency Service
23 January 2024
[2024] EAT 5
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A man with a stammer didn't get a promotion. He said the way the interview was done made it harder for him to speak because of his stammer. The judge said the company didn't know about this problem, and even if they did, using video interviews was a reasonable way to do things during a pandemic. So, the man's case was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Glasson, an employee with a stammer since 2005, applied for promotion.
- •The interview was conducted via video conferencing due to the pandemic.
- •He scored one point lower than the second-highest candidate and was placed on a reserve list.
- •He claimed failure to comply with reasonable adjustment duty and discrimination arising from disability.
- •His claim focused on his 'restrictive mode' of communication, not the need for extra time to answer.
- •The respondent (Insolvency Service) was aware of his stammer but not of the 'restrictive mode' effect.
- •The tribunal dismissed both claims.
Legal Principles
Duty to make reasonable adjustments (section 20 Equality Act 2010)
Equality Act 2010
Discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010)
Equality Act 2010
Constructive knowledge in reasonable adjustments claims (Schedule 8 paragraph 20)
Equality Act 2010, Schedule 8 paragraph 20
Justification defence in discrimination arising from disability claims (section 15(1)(b) Equality Act 2010)
Equality Act 2010
Structured approach in reasonable adjustments claims (Environment Agency v Rowan)
Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218
Reasonableness of enquiries for constructive knowledge (A Ltd v Z)
A Ltd v Z [2020] ICR 199
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The tribunal correctly found that the respondent lacked actual and constructive knowledge of the 'restrictive mode' disadvantage. The justification defence for discrimination arising from disability was also made out.