The claimant, a teacher employed by the respondent, suffered from cystic fibrosis, the self-management of which imposed heavy demands on him, and was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent had full knowledge of the claimant’s condition and at the outset of his employment various reasonable adjustments were agreed to accommodate his disability. However, after the school had been taken over by a new head teacher who had not been briefed about the claimant’s disability nor about the agreement regarding reasonable adjustments, new and increased demands were made of the claimant which increased his levels of stress. Whilst subject to this high level of stress the claimant showed certain pupils an inappropriate horror film without informing the school nor obtaining consent from the pupils’ parents. Following a disciplinary hearing the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. His appeal was unsuccessful. An employment tribunal upheld, inter alia, the claimant’s claim for discrimination under section 15 of the 2010 Act in respect of his dismissal, finding that the respondent’s dismissal of the claimant was unfavourable treatment; that the unfavourable treatment had been imposed because the claimant had shown pupils an inappropriate film; and that the claimant had shown the film in consequence of his disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s appeal. On its further appeal the respondent argued that in order to satisfy section 15(1)(a) the claimant had to show that the respondent had appreciated that the claimant’s behaviour in showing the film had arisen in consequence of his disability.
On the respondent’s appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. Section 15(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 did not require that a person should be shown to have been aware when choosing to subject a disabled person to unfavourable treatment that the relevant something that provided that person with his reason for treating a disabled person unfavourably had arisen in consequence of the person’s disability. Section 15(1)(a) required an investigation of two distinct causative issues, namely whether a person had treated a disabled person unfavourably because of an identified something and whether that something had arisen in consequence of the disability. Further, section 15(2) was inconsistent with any suggestion that lack of knowledge of the consequences of the disability was a defence. In the present case, the respondent had dismissed the claimant because he had shown the film, which he had done because of the exceptionally high stress he was subjected to, which arose from the effect of his disability when greater demands were made of him at work. Accordingly, the rulings of both the tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the claimant’s case under section 15(1)(a) was made out in relation to his dismissal on the basis of the findings made by the tribunal could not be faulted (paras 35, 36, 42, 52, 59, 60, 61, 67).
John Bowers QC and Sam Healy (instructed by York City Council, York) for the respondent.
Ben Cooper QC and Angharad Davies (instructed by National Education Union) for the claimant.