N Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd

For a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the disability-related “something” need not be the sole or principal reason for unfavourable treatment. It must have sufficient causal significance to be an effective cause. A reason consciously taken into account may be a contributing but subsidiary reason; describing it as trivial merely because it was not the primary reason is an error.

However, an unchallenged finding that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim defeats the section 15 claim. In an unfair-dismissal case, the tribunal need not expressly address matters not advanced as grounds of unfairness, provided its reasoning shows that it considered the relevant circumstances and reached a permissible conclusion.

The claimant, a care-home activities coordinator with anxiety and depression, was summarily dismissed after an investigation into a series of disruptive and targeted incidents at the care home. The employer concluded, from circumstantial evidence including opportunity, handwriting and her answers at an investigatory meeting, that she was responsible.

The Employment Tribunal rejected claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal. It upheld two reasonable-adjustment complaints concerning the investigatory meeting, but dismissed the claimant’s section 15 disability-discrimination complaints. It found that her manner of answering questions arose from disability but had only a trivial influence on the referral to disciplinary proceedings and no significant influence on dismissal. Alternatively, it found the treatment justified.

The appeal challenged the dismissal of the section 15 and unfair-dismissal claims.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to causation under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. Its findings established that the claimant’s disability-related manner of answering questions was a contributing factor in the decision to refer her to a disciplinary hearing. It was wrong to treat that factor as legally irrelevant merely because it was minor rather than the primary reason.

2. There is no separate statutory concept of causal triviality. The question is whether the unfavourable treatment was because of the relevant disability-related something. That something need not be the sole or main cause, but must have a significant influence so as to be an effective cause. Great care is required before treating a matter consciously taken into account by a decision-maker as too trivial to establish liability.

3. The error did not alter the result on the section 15 claim. The unfavourable treatment pleaded was referral to a disciplinary hearing and dismissal, rather than the investigator’s consideration of the claimant’s demeanour. The Tribunal’s alternative finding that both forms of treatment were proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining disciplinary standards was not appealed. That unchallenged justification finding was fatal to the claim.

4. There was no error of law in the rejection of unfair dismissal. The claimant had not advanced the absence of advance notice or representation at the investigatory meeting as grounds rendering dismissal unfair. The Tribunal was not required expressly to address every factor. Its detailed findings showed that it had considered the investigation, including the limited use made of the claimant’s demeanour, and permissibly concluded that dismissal was fair.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of the section 15 and unfair-dismissal claims was upheld, notwithstanding an error in its section 15 causation analysis ([2024] EAT 65).
• Employment Tribunal, London South: judgment dated 8 December 2021. It dismissed the relevant claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal, while upholding two reasonable-adjustment complaints.