Employer's Duty to Reasonably Adjust for Disabilities: Analysis of Glasson v The Insolvency Service ([2024] EAT 5)

Citation: [2024] EAT 5
Judgment on

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of S Glasson v The Insolvency Service ([2024] EAT 5) offers a meticulous dissection of the legal principles pertaining to disability discrimination within the realm of employment. Specifically, it addresses the obligations of employers under the Equality Act 2010, focusing on the duty to make reasonable adjustments (Section 20) and discrimination arising from disability (Section 15). This article elucidates the legal reasoning applied by the EAT in this case, with a cogent link to the relevant statutory provisions.

Key Facts

Mr. S Glasson, an employee with a stammer, contested his failure to secure a promotion within The Insolvency Service, grounding his allegations on the employer’s presumed violations of the duty of reasonable adjustment and discrimination arising from disability per the Equality Act 2010. Despite Glasson’s longstanding tenure and high performance, his stammer led him into a “restrictive mode” during an interview, curbing his capacity to furnish comprehensive responses. Despite acknowledging this impediment, the tribunal ruled against Glasson, leading to his appeal on grounds of purported errors in law.

The crux of the case pertains to two key areas of disability discrimination law:

  1. Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments (Section 20, Equality Act 2010): The tribunal examined whether Glasson’s stammer constituted a disability giving rise to a duty on the employer to reasonably alter their practices. Glasson pointed to required adjustments around interview methodology, including video conferencing and the weight placed on oral versus written answers.

  2. Discrimination Arising from Disability (Section 15, Equality Act 2010): Glasson contended that the negative impact of his stammer on his interview performance, which he claimed arose from his disability, was treated unfavorably and that such treatment could not be justified as a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim by the employer.

The EAT’s analysis centered on the employer’s awareness (actual or constructive) of the disadvantage caused by the stammer and whether it was proportionate and necessary to adhere to the established assessment method for job promotions.

Constructive knowledge, an essential element of the reasonable adjustment duty, was scrutinized, with key references made to existing case law such as AECOM Ltd v Mallon ([2023] EAT 104) and established principles from A Ltd v Z ([2020] ICR 199). The EAT ultimately found that The Insolvency Service did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the specific disadvantage Glasson’s stammer caused during the interview. Furthermore, it concluded that the treatment Glasson faced was justified within the meaning of Section 15.

The EAT also referred to the case of Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc ([2006] ICR 524) in rejecting an argument about potential irrelevant considerations, making it clear that an employer’s awareness of an employee’s disability does not universally translate to knowledge of all the ways that disability might manifest.

Outcomes

The EAT dismissed Glasson’s appeal on several grounds:

  • It did not find error with the tribunal’s conclusion that The Insolvency Service lacked the requisite knowledge of the disadvantage Glasson’s disability posed during interviews.
  • It held that Glasson’s failure to inform the interviewers or request specific adjustments regarding his restrictive mode mitigated against a finding of constructive knowledge on the employer’s part.
  • The EAT found the tribunal’s application of the proportionality test in the context of Section 15 justified, concluding the employer’s actions were proportionate in achieving a legitimate aim—specifically, a fair recruitment process for filling business-critical roles.

Conclusion

The EAT decision in S Glasson v The Insolvency Service epitomizes the nuance inherent in disability discrimination law. It underscores an employer’s duty to act on known disadvantages posed by disabilities and recognizes the discretional leeway employers retain in fulfilling business-critical needs. The case reiterates the requirements of constructive knowledge for employers and delineates the boundaries of justifiable actions under the Equality Act 2010. For legal practitioners, this judgement affirms the importance of ascertaining an employer’s awareness of specific disabled-related disadvantages and the scrutiny applicable to the justification defense in discrimination arising from disability claims.