Simon Pipe v Coventry Higher Education

This appeal concerned claims under the Equality Act 2010: discrimination arising from disability (section 15), indirect discrimination (section 19) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20–21) in the context of internal promotion. The Employment Tribunal found that the University’s Framework for progression (the PCP) did not rigidly require a traditional PhD, that it permitted other routes or equivalence, and that a separate requirement — a demonstrable business case/budget for a bespoke grade 7 role — was decisive. The ET held there was no relevant causal link between the unfavourable treatment and something arising from the appellant’s disability because in each relevant year there was no business case for the post; it also held the adjustments sought (creation of a teaching-only grade 7 post outside the Framework) were not reasonable. The EAT allowed the appeal in part on other issues and remitted some claims but dismissed the remainder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds, holding that the ET applied the correct legal principles, its factual findings (notably the absence of a business case) were open to it and were dispositive of causation and proportionality under sections 15 and 19.

The appellant, a disabled grade 6 lecturer (ADHD and sleep disorder), applied for promotion to grade 7 on several occasions under the University’s Framework for progression and twice asked to be considered outside that process as a reasonable adjustment. He resigned and brought claims to the Employment Tribunal alleging discrimination arising from disability (section 15), indirect discrimination (section 19) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20–21).

The Employment Tribunal (Mrs Justice Eady at first instance) found that:

• the relevant PCP was the University’s Framework;
• the Framework did not rigidly require a traditional PhD and allowed pathways or equivalent routes in practice;
• the Framework also required a business case/budget for the specific grade 7 role and, in each year relevant to the appellant’s applications, there was no business case for such a post;
• the occupational health and medical evidence did not establish that the adjustments sought (promotion outside the Framework or creation of a teaching-only grade 7 post) were reasonable; and
• for those reasons the appellant had not been placed at a substantial disadvantage nor treated unfavourably because of something arising from his disability, and the Framework was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

The EAT allowed the appellant’s appeal in part (remitting claims relating to indirect disability and age discrimination based on events in 2020) but dismissed other grounds. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal the issues focussed on (i) causation under section 15(1)(a), (ii) the proper approach to proportionality under section 15(1)(b), and (iii) the application of the section 19(1) test of particular disadvantage and proportionality under section 19(2).

The Court of Appeal held (i) the ET had correctly applied the legal tests set out in its agreed statement of law, (ii) the ET’s factual findings — notably that the absence of any business case for a grade 7 role in the relevant years was dispositive — were open to it and meant that any disadvantage or unfavourable treatment would have occurred irrespective of the appellant’s disability, and (iii) the ET properly addressed reasonable adjustments and proportionality, including legitimate aims of the Framework. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal principles (including tests under sections 15 and 19 and the law on reasonable adjustments), and its factual findings — in particular that there was no business case for the grade 7 role in the relevant years and that the adjustments sought were not reasonable — were open to it and dispositive of causation and proportionality.