Department of Work and Pensions v Robinson

For discrimination arising from disability under section 15, the consequence of disability must be an effective cause of the unfavourable treatment. It is insufficient that the claimant would not have encountered the treatment but for disability.

An unsuccessful and delayed attempt to address disability-related difficulties is not, without more, treatment motivated by their consequences. Similarly, bureaucratic delay in handling a grievance is not discriminatory merely because the grievance concerns disability discrimination. A move to suitable alternative work may be justified where it enables the employee to remain employed at the same grade. The reasoning in [2019] IRLR 298 was applied.

The claimant had visual impairment associated with migraine which prevented her from using a computer system required for her role. The respondent attempted technical adjustments, including magnification software, but they did not provide a workable solution. The claimant was eventually moved to paper-based work and brought grievances concerning the delay and its effect on her wellbeing.

The Employment Tribunal upheld her claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, but dismissed her reasonable-adjustments claim under section 20. The respondent appealed the section 15 decision. The claimant cross-appealed the dismissal of the section 20 claim, including by relying on alleged fresh evidence concerning alternative software.

1. Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal's findings could not in law sustain a finding of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The Appeal Tribunal substituted dismissal of that claim and did not remit it.

2. Section 15 requires a causal connection between the relevant consequence of disability and the unfavourable treatment. The consequence must be an effective cause, or have a significant influence, on the treatment. A mere “but for” connection is insufficient. Applying Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice, [2019] IRLR 298, the unsuccessful attempts to make the computer systems and magnification software work were not motivated by the claimant's disability-related symptoms. The technical difficulties, the failure of the proposed solution and the resulting delay did not establish the required causal connection.

3. The delay in completing the grievances was bureaucratic and reprehensible, but there were no primary facts connecting it with the consequences of disability. Mishandling a grievance is not rendered discriminatory merely because it concerns discrimination.

4. Moving the claimant to paper-based work was capable of being unfavourable treatment caused by the consequences of disability. However, if that allegation had been upheld, objective justification necessarily succeeded. The move enabled her to remain in employment at the same grade, which was a legitimate aim achieved proportionately. That conclusion also avoided inconsistency with the Tribunal's finding that reasonable adjustments had been made.

5. The Tribunal's dismissal of the section 20 claim was supported by evidence. It was entitled to find that magnification software, including Super Nova, had been considered and was not a reasonable workable solution. Later material could not show that the Tribunal had erred on the evidence before it; no exceptional basis for receiving fresh evidence was established.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the respondent's appeal, set aside the Employment Tribunal's section 15 decision and substituted dismissal of that claim. Dismissed the claimant's cross-appeal against dismissal of the section 20 claim.
• Employment Tribunal, Huntingdon: In a reserved decision sent on 23 October 2018, upheld the claimant's section 15 claim under the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed her section 20 reasonable-adjustments claim.