Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Steven Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

[2024] EAT 175
A police employee was fired for watching porn at work and claimed discrimination because of depression linked to other health problems. A court found that while the original court made a few small mistakes, the employee wasn't actually disabled according to the law, so the firing was okay. The case clarified how to prove you have a disability according to UK law.

Key Facts

  • Steven Connor (claimant/appellant) was a civilian employee of South Yorkshire Police, dismissed for accessing pornography on work equipment.
  • Connor claimed disability discrimination, citing depression linked to physical disabilities.
  • The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed his claim, finding no disability before his suspension in February 2019.
  • Connor appealed, arguing procedural irregularities (denial of re-examination) and errors of law in the disability discrimination assessment.
  • The ET found that the claimant had physical disabilities but that his mental impairment did not meet the criteria for disability under the Equality Act 2010 before his suspension date.

Legal Principles

To establish a recurring disability, it must be shown that the impairment had substantial effects on day-to-day activities both previously and currently.

Schedule 1, Equality Act 2010

Section 15 Equality Act 2010 requires an objective factual finding of a connection between the disability and the 'something' arising from it. A medical practitioner's statement indicating a connection, even if not explicitly stated, can meet the balance of probabilities test.

Equality Act 2010, Section 15

In disability discrimination claims, the employer need not be aware that the 'something' arises from the disability; the tribunal must objectively assess this.

City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105

Rejection of medical evidence requires substantive reasoning; simply noting the report's purpose for preparation is insufficient.

Case Law (implied)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

No procedural irregularity found; the ET did not deny Connor the opportunity for re-examination. The ET's conclusion on disability was not perverse; they correctly applied the law and considered the evidence, concluding the claimant's mental impairment did not meet the criteria for a disability prior to his suspension. The ET's errors regarding Dr. Barrett's report and application of section 15 EA 2010 did not change the outcome as the claim was not successful on disability.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.