H Ahmed v Department of Work and Pensions

A refusal of an application which would improve an employee’s position may be unfavourable treatment under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal must identify the alleged treatment and apply the ordinary meaning of “unfavourable”.

A reasonable-adjustment claim requires disadvantage to the individual claimant. It does not impose a separate requirement to prove group disadvantage, although group evidence may sometimes support an inference of individual disadvantage.

Issue estoppel applies only to an issue actually determined. A later claim concerning adjustments to working arrangements under a new opportunity to join a scheme was not determined by an earlier claim concerning late admission to it. A tribunal should not vary ordered in-person hearing arrangements without a material reason. When a party ceases attending, rule 47 requires particular care before dismissal.

The claimant, a disabled former Work Coach, brought three appeals arising from separate employment tribunal claims against the Department for Work and Pensions.

• In claim 5, he challenged the refusal in 2020 to allow him to join the Employee Deal after opting out in 2016. His complaints were under section 15 and the reasonable-adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010.
• In claim 7, he complained that, during a fresh opportunity to join the Deal in 2022, the respondent failed to accommodate his existing working pattern. The tribunal struck out the claim on issue-estoppel grounds.
• In claim 4, concerning alleged race and disability discrimination in disciplinary and grievance processes, the tribunal changed the ordered in-person hearing arrangements and later dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the claimant did not attend.

The central questions were whether claim 5 had been correctly dismissed, whether claim 7 raised an issue already determined, and whether the rule 47 dismissal of claim 4 was fair.

1. Appeal 1 was dismissed. The tribunal erred in holding that the 2020 response was not unfavourable treatment under section 15(1) of the Equality Act 2010. In substance, the claimant had applied to join the Deal and the respondent had refused that application. A refusal of a benefit or improvement may naturally be unfavourable treatment. The tribunal nevertheless permissibly found that the claimant’s 2016 opt-out did not arise in consequence of his disability. That finding defeated the section 15 claim. Its alternative conclusion on justification and its dismissal of the reasonable-adjustment complaint disclosed no error.
2. Appeal 2 was allowed. The claim concerning the 2022 re-offer of the Deal raised a distinct issue: whether reasonable adjustments should be made to the working arrangements that would apply if the claimant joined. The earlier decision concerned late admission to the Deal in 2020 and had not determined that issue. Issue estoppel therefore did not apply. The strike-out application was refused, claim 7 was restored, and the amendment application was to be considered by a different Employment Judge.
3. Appeal 3 was allowed. The tribunal had misunderstood the extant directions. The final hearing had been ordered to proceed in person, subject only to permissions for two respondent witnesses to give evidence remotely. Once the error was understood, the proper starting point was that the hearing should resume as directed unless a material reason prevented that course.
4. Rule 47 required careful assessment of why a party who had initially attended no longer participated and whether that party had abandoned future participation. The tribunal gave the claimant a very short period to respond, did not adequately pursue clarification after he invoked disability-related fatigue, and wrongly relied on absence during periods when attendance was not required. Its dismissal was unfair. The rule 47 application was refused, claim 4 was restored, and it was to be relisted for an in-person trial before a differently constituted panel.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeals 2 and 3 allowed; appeal 1 dismissed: [2025] EAT 176.
• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: Claim 5 was dismissed after a merits hearing. That decision was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal, West Midlands: Claim 7 was struck out on issue-estoppel grounds. That decision was reversed.
• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: Claim 4 was dismissed under rule 47. That decision was reversed.