EAT Decision Highlights Insufficient Reasoning in Disability Discrimination Case

Citation: [2023] EAT 162
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Edge Hill University v E Glasby, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dealt with issues arising from an employment tribunal’s handling of complaints under the Equality Act 2010. The case centered around whether the original tribunal had sufficiently addressed critical elements of the complaints relating to discrimination arising from disability and failure to comply with the duty of reasonable adjustment. This article analyzes the EAT’s judgment, highlighting the legal principles applicable to the case and the rationale behind the appeal outcome.

Key Facts

Ms. Glasby, a wheelchair user also treated for cancer, was dismissed by Edge Hill University on grounds of capability linked to her sickness absence record. The employment tribunal initially upheld three complaints of failure to comply with the duty of reasonable adjustment and two complaints of discrimination arising from disability, preponderantly concerning the dismissal.

The EAT analyzed the tribunal’s handling of these complaints, focusing on whether essential legal components were properly considered. This included time constraints for raising complaints, the substantial disadvantage experienced by the claimant compared to non-disabled persons, the employer’s knowledge of any such disadvantage, and whether the adjustments sought were reasonable.

The EAT’s findings revolved around several legal principles:

  1. Reasonable Adjustments: Under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid a disabled person being placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled persons.

  2. Discrimination Arising from Disability: Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits employers from treating an employee unfavorably because of something arising in consequence of the employee’s disability unless the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

  3. Justification Defence: This defence allows the employer to escape liability if it can be shown that the unfavourable treatment was a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, considering the overall context, including the impact of the employee’s disability.

  4. Perversity and Credibility Assessments: In reviewing decisions, the EAT considers whether the original tribunal’s conclusions were perverse or whether its credibility assessments were inconsistent with the evidence presented.

  5. Timing Issues: Claims must be brought within certain time limits unless it is just and equitable to extend the time.

In its analysis, the EAT considered whether the original tribunal’s conclusions were sufficiently supported by reasons and whether it had adequately engaged with the legal principles, citation of evidence, and considerations required for each component of the complaints.

Outcomes

The EAT allowed the appeal, finding that the employment tribunal’s reasons were fundamentally inadequate for several of the claims that were initially upheld. Specifically, the EAT noted:

  • The tribunal failed to provide reasons for key components of the complaints.
  • There was insufficient engagement with whether the employer’s treatment of the claimant arose as a consequence of the claimant’s disability.
  • The tribunal’s majority did not appropriately consider the justification defence for the employer, creating a conflict with their own previous factual findings and not reflecting the claimant’s case.

Due to these deficiencies, the decision to uphold certain complaints was quashed, and the matters were remitted for fresh determination by a new panel.

Conclusion

The EAT’s decision emphasizes the necessity for a tribunal to meticulously address and reason all elements of claims under the Equality Act 2010. A failure to do so undermines the integrity of the tribunal’s findings and necessitates a remittance for a new hearing. This case serves as an instructive exemplar for employment tribunals to comprehend their obligation to provide clear and comprehensible reasoning that covers the essentials of the legal tests involved, especially in complex disability discrimination cases.