Key Facts
- •SS, parents of child S (aged 9), appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision dismissing their disability discrimination claims against S's former independent school.
- •S has ASD, ADHD, anxiety, depression, and sensory processing difficulties.
- •The FTT found S engaged in violent and aggressive behavior linked to her disability, disapplying Regulation 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010.
- •The appeal focused on the FTT's handling of claims related to S's permanent exclusion, denial of an extra therapy dog session, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Legal Principles
Discrimination arising from disability (s. 15 Equality Act 2010): A five-step process determining unfavourable treatment, the reason, its link to disability, knowledge of disability, and proportionality of the treatment.
Equality Act 2010, s. 15
Unfavourable treatment under s. 15 requires an objective assessment, not solely based on the claimant's perception. A low threshold of disadvantage must be met, judged objectively based on general experience.
Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65
Reasonable adjustments (ss. 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010): Requires identifying the provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) causing substantial disadvantage, then assessing the reasonableness of adjustments to avoid the disadvantage.
Equality Act 2010, ss. 20 & 21; Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] IRLR 20; Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1265
Proportionality assessment under s. 15 requires considering whether less impactful measures could achieve the legitimate aim. Prior failure to make reasonable adjustments renders justification more difficult.
Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The FTT erred in law in its handling of claims related to S's permanent exclusion, the therapy dog session, and several reasonable adjustment claims. The errors were material and necessitate a rehearing.
FTT decision set aside partially.
Only the claims where the FTT materially erred in law are remitted for reconsideration by a new FTT. Other parts of the decision remain binding.