M Shah v Home Office

For discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal must identify what caused the unfavourable treatment and ask whether that cause arose in consequence of disability. The disability-related cause need not be the sole or main reason; it is enough that it had a significant, more than trivial influence. The link between disability and that cause is assessed objectively, and an employer’s mistaken belief about the claimant’s motives does not itself break the link.

An application under a disabled-applicant scheme may be a protected act if it is connected with the Act’s positive-action provisions. The tribunal must consider that connection before deciding the point. The EAT allowed the appeal in part and remitted the outstanding issues.

The claimant, who was disabled by depression, applied for an overseas Home Office post under its Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS). The scheme offered a guaranteed interview to disabled applicants who met the minimum criteria. After the claimant used his own email address in the field intended for his line manager, a manager suspected that he had falsely claimed disability to obtain an interview. The Respondent initiated a disciplinary investigation, which ended without further action.

The claimant also lodged a grievance alleging disability discrimination. The Employment Tribunal, whose reasons were promulgated on 10 January 2022, upheld his unfair-dismissal claim but dismissed his claims under sections 15 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The appeal concerned whether the investigation was because of something arising in consequence of disability, whether the GIS application could be a protected act, and whether the Tribunal had made a perverse finding about who initiated the investigation.

1. Appeal allowed in part. Grounds 1 and 2 succeeded; ground 3 failed.
2. For section 15, the Tribunal had to identify the cause of the investigation and separately ask whether that cause arose in consequence of disability. The relevant cause was the claimant’s use of the GIS box. The Tribunal had found that he ticked it because he was disabled, and that the box was part of the reason for the investigation. The disability-related cause did not need to be the employer’s main or sole motivation. Nor did the employer’s genuine but mistaken belief that the claimant was dishonest prevent disability from being an effective cause. The EAT also held that the Tribunal had wrongly focused on the employer’s motivation and had treated the disability-related cause as background. It distinguished Kelso v Department for Work and Pensions EAT 0009/15, where the pleaded case and admissions disclosed no relevant link between disability and the treatment. The EAT substituted a finding that the investigation was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.
3. For victimisation, the Tribunal had erred by treating the GIS application simply as a request for a more favourable process. The application was arguably connected with the positive-action provisions in sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT did not decide whether the application was in fact a protected act under section 27(2)(c), or whether it caused the detriment. Those questions were remitted.
4. The finding about the investigation’s initiation was not perverse. Read as a whole, the Tribunal’s reasons found that Ms Wright initiated the investigation, despite a contrary description elsewhere in its reasons. The case was remitted to the same Tribunal to determine the outstanding section 15 defence and the protected-act and causation issues for victimisation. The judgment describes the section 15 defence as arising under subsection (2), although the statutory text it reproduces places proportionality in subsection (1)(b) and the knowledge defence in subsection (2).

• Employment Appeal Tribunal — In M Shah v Home Office [2026] EAT 103 , grounds 1 and 2 were allowed and ground 3 dismissed. The EAT substituted a finding on the section 15 claim and remitted the outstanding issues to the same Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal — Reasons promulgated on 10 January 2022. The Tribunal upheld the unfair-dismissal claim and dismissed the disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The EAT allowed the appeal in part.