Hall v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire Police

Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 requires a causal connection between disability and unfavourable treatment, but it does not require the disability itself to be the sole, main or predominant cause of that treatment. The statutory language permits a connection where something arising from disability has a significant influence or is an effective cause.

The question is not the employer’s motive for acting. Section 15 was enacted to loosen the causal connection required after London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and to restore substantive protection against disability-related detriment, subject to the employer’s justification defence.

The Claimant, a finance officer, was dismissed following allegations that she was falsely claiming sickness absence. The Employment Tribunal found that she was disabled by stress, anxiety and depression during the relevant period. It found the dismissal unfair but dismissed her claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had suffered unfavourable treatment. It held, however, that the treatment resulted from the Respondent’s genuine, though mistaken, belief in fraudulent sickness claims rather than from her disability. It nevertheless found that the treatment could not be justified if section 15 applied.

The Claimant appealed from the Employment Tribunal’s Reserved Judgment of 8 December 2014. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had imposed an unduly stringent causal requirement under section 15.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the section 15 claim. Its errors were material and the only conclusion open on its findings was that the statutory causal connection was established.

2. Section 15(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 does not require the claimant’s disability itself to be the cause of the employer’s action. Nor does it require the disability to be more than background in the sense adopted by the Tribunal. The provision allows liability where something arising in consequence of disability significantly influenced the unfavourable treatment, or was an effective cause even though not its sole or main cause.

3. The Tribunal also asked the wrong question by considering the Respondent’s motivation. The relevant inquiry concerns the causal connection required by the statutory words, not the employer’s purpose or motive for treating the claimant unfavourably.

4. The legislative history confirmed that section 15 was intended to reverse the restrictive effect of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and restore the approach represented by Clark v Novacold. Parliament removed the comparator requirement and used language which loosened the causal connection, while retaining the knowledge defence in section 15(2) and the justification defence in section 15(1)(b).

5. On the Tribunal’s findings, the Claimant’s disability-related sickness absence and the Respondent’s treatment were sufficiently connected. The Respondent’s belief that the sickness claims were false did not break that connection. The section 15 claim therefore succeeded; the Tribunal had already found that the treatment was not justified.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the Claimant’s appeal and held that the section 15 claim succeeded.
• Employment Tribunal: In a Reserved Judgment dated 8 December 2014, held the dismissal unfair but dismissed the disability-discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.