Brighton v Tesco Stores Ltd

On a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, an Employment Tribunal must determine for itself whether the relevant conduct arose in consequence of disability. It is not bound to accept medical evidence, but must give due regard to relevant professional evidence, especially where it bears directly on the central factual issues.

A tribunal errs if it dismisses a treating specialist’s opinion merely because it is informed by the patient’s account. Medical opinions commonly depend on such histories, and a treating doctor may properly give evidence. Reasons must adequately explain the rejection or disregard of important medical evidence.

The claimant, who had epilepsy and was a disabled person, was dismissed for aggressive conduct towards his manager on 19 October 2012. He contended that he had suffered an epileptic seizure and that the conduct for which he was dismissed arose from it.

The Southampton Employment Tribunal dismissed his unfair-dismissal and disability-discrimination claims. It found that he had not suffered a seizure. The tribunal referred only briefly to medical evidence from his consultant neurologist and described it as self-generated.

On appeal, the claimant challenged the dismissal of the disability-discrimination claim. The central issues were whether the tribunal had properly considered the medical evidence and whether its reasons for rejecting it met the standard in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s determination that the claimant had not suffered a seizure on 19 October 2012 could not stand. The disability-discrimination issues arising from that incident were remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

2. For section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal had correctly identified that it had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because of something arising in consequence of epilepsy. That required findings on whether he had a seizure and, if so, whether it caused or contributed to the aggressive conduct.

3. The tribunal was entitled to reach its own conclusion on the evidence and was not obliged to accept the neurologist’s letters. However, the letters were directly relevant to the central issues. They contained evidence that the claimant had seizures on the relevant day and that seizures could involve amnesia and aggression. The tribunal gave no indication that it had given that evidence due regard.

4. It was not a proper basis for dismissing the medical evidence to call it self-generated because it depended on the claimant’s account. Doctors ordinarily take patient histories, and an epileptic seizure may lack lasting objectively observable features. There was also no objection in principle to evidence from a treating doctor rather than an independent expert.

5. The reasons did not meet the standard in Meek. Apart from the flawed reference to self-generated evidence, the tribunal gave no reason for disregarding the important specialist evidence. The remitted tribunal was directed to determine whether a seizure occurred and whether it caused or contributed to the conduct leading to dismissal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal and remitted the disability-discrimination issues for rehearing: [2016] UKEAT 0165_15_2701.
• Employment Tribunal, Southampton: dismissed the claimant’s unfair-dismissal and disability-discrimination claims in a decision sent to the parties on 3 October 2014.