Deltron Components Ltd v Parsons

In a disability discrimination claim, the question is whether the disabled employee was treated less favourably for a reason relating to the disability. The statutory concepts of less favourable treatment and the relevant disability-related reason may be separated for analytical convenience, but they remain parts of the single statutory question. A tribunal may draw an inference of discrimination from its primary findings, including an inadequate or absent explanation from the employer. Where detailed findings plainly establish the factual basis for the conclusion, the tribunal need not identify every individual fact relied upon or provide superfluous reasoning.

Mr Parsons, who was blind, was dismissed by Deltron Components Ltd following what the company described as a redundancy process. An Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair and constituted disability discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected a challenge based on inadequate reasons. Permission to appeal was refused on paper and renewed before the Court of Appeal. The applicant advanced an additional argument that the Employment Tribunal had conflated less favourable treatment with the reason relating to disability. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in finding that the dismissal constituted less favourable treatment arising from disability.

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Buxton gave the principal judgment, with which Lord Justice Latham entirely agreed.

1. The Employment Tribunal had made detailed findings concerning the treatment of Mr Parsons, including humiliating and abusive conduct connected with his blindness, the defective redundancy selection process, the absence of proper consultation and the failure to consider alternative employment.
2. The Tribunal correctly approached the discrimination issue by asking whether the dismissal was less favourable treatment for a reason relating to the applicant’s disability. The distinction between less favourable treatment and the disability-related reason was a convenient analytical division, not a requirement to treat them as wholly separate statutory questions. This was consistent with Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] ICR 120.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to use the inferential approach explained in King v Great Britain China Centre [1992] ICR 516. It identified matters calling for an explanation, considered the employer’s unsatisfactory explanations, and drew the inference that the disability was a reason for the less favourable treatment.
4. The Tribunal’s conclusion that disability was a factor in the dismissal was not inconsistent with its preceding reasoning. Its extensive findings supplied an adequate basis for the decision, and it was unnecessary to identify every detail relied upon.
5. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had correctly rejected the challenge based on inadequate reasons. The renewed permission application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s order of 16 October 2001 was dismissed. Permission had previously been refused on paper by Mummery LJ.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision was dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: Decision sent to the parties on 5 January 2001; Mr Parsons was found to have been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of disability.