iForce Ltd v Wood

For disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the connection between the employee’s disability and the relevant “something” is objective and may be established through a series of causal links. The employer need not know of that connection, provided it knew of the disability.

There must nevertheless be an evidential basis for finding that the relevant conduct arose in consequence of the disability. A genuine but mistaken belief does not, without more, meet that requirement. It may do so if the disability caused an impairment of judgment producing the belief, but that causal link must be found on the evidence.

The claimant, a warehouse worker with osteoarthritis, refused an instruction to rotate between work benches, including benches near loading-bay doors. She believed that those positions were colder and damper and would worsen her symptoms. The employer’s investigations showed no material difference in temperature or humidity. It issued a final written warning, later reduced on internal appeal to a written warning.

The Leeds Employment Tribunal upheld her claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that the refusal arose in consequence of her disability. The employer appealed only that determination. The central issue was whether the claimant’s refusal, founded on her mistaken belief about conditions at the benches, objectively arose in consequence of osteoarthritis.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s judgment on the section 15 claim was set aside.
2. Section 15(1)(a) requires two distinct causal inquiries: whether the employer treated the claimant unfavourably because of an identified “something”, and whether that something arose in consequence of disability. The latter inquiry is objective. The connection is broad and may comprise a chain of links. The employer’s lack of belief in, or knowledge of, the particular causal link is immaterial where it knows of the disability.
3. Here, the warning was imposed because the claimant refused the instruction to work at all benches. Her perception that cold and damp conditions worsened her osteoarthritis could, on the Tribunal’s findings, arise in consequence of that disability. If she had been required to work in materially colder or damper conditions, a refusal based on that perception could therefore satisfy section 15.
4. However, the Tribunal found that there was no material difference in temperature or humidity between the benches and that the claimant was mistaken in believing otherwise. It did not find, and the claimant had not contended, that pain, stress or another consequence of osteoarthritis impaired her judgment so as to cause that mistaken belief. The earlier medical material could support her belief about the effect of cold and damp on symptoms, but did not explain why she believed particular parts of the warehouse had those conditions.
5. The Tribunal’s reasoning therefore disclosed no causal connection between the disability and the erroneous belief that led to the refusal. This was not merely a deficiency of reasons. On its findings, the statutory causal requirement was not met, so the section 15 claim failed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the employer’s appeal and set aside the Employment Tribunal’s decision upholding the claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
• Leeds Employment Tribunal: Upheld the claimant’s section 15 disability-discrimination claim concerning the final written warning, while also upholding a reasonable-adjustments complaint and dismissing her other claims.