Karen Steedman v East Lothian Council

A tribunal assessing compensation for an unappealed finding of failure to make reasonable adjustments may interpret the earlier decision by reasonable inference to establish the adjustment’s scope and duration. Under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, an adjustment must remain reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. Although success need not be guaranteed, a step with no prospect of achieving that purpose is not required. An appellate tribunal reviews the employment tribunal’s reasons as a whole and may uphold a finding of no financial loss where the factual findings support it.

Karen Steedman was employed by East Lothian Council and was dismissed after a lengthy absence. An Employment Tribunal had found that the Council failed to make a reasonable adjustment by moving her away from a manager. Following an earlier appeal and remittal of other claims, a second tribunal interpreted that finding as requiring a transfer within the East Lothian Works team between 12 October and 29 November 2016. It awarded compensation for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury, but found no financial loss flowed from the breach.

Steedman appealed, arguing that the second tribunal had impermissibly narrowed the earlier finding and should have considered the chance that she would have returned to work, including through a lump-sum award. The central issues were whether the tribunal could interpret the earlier liability decision in that way and whether its assessment of financial loss disclosed an error of law.

1. The appeal was refused. Grounds 2 and 3 and the first part of ground 4 followed from ground 1 and also failed.
2. The second tribunal permissibly interpreted the unappealed findings in the first decision. Assessing remedy required it to identify the act of discrimination and how the claimant would have been placed had it not occurred. Interpreting and applying an earlier decision formed part of its adjudicatory role. The earlier tribunal’s references to a similar move made in 2014, and to a move being practicable, supported an inference that the adjustment was a transfer within East Lothian Works, rather than general redeployment elsewhere in the Council. The inference did not reopen the settled liability finding.
3. The adjustment could be limited to the period from 12 October to 29 November 2016. The move was proposed on 12 October. By 29 November the claimant had said that returning to her substantive post was not an option. Under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, there was no unlawful failure requiring redress once the adjustment was no longer reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. An adjustment need not guarantee success, but a step with no prospect of achieving its purpose need not be taken. The tribunal was entitled to find that a transfer would no longer have achieved that purpose after the claimant said she would not return to the post. The first decision’s separate reasoning on dismissal and discrimination arising from disability, and its reference to a move being possible in 2016, were consistent with that interpretation.
4. The tribunal also did not err in finding no financial loss. Applying the approach in DPP Law v Greenberg [2021] EWCA Civ 572, the EAT read the decision as a whole and did not presume that matters not expressly stated had been overlooked. The findings included that the claimant was unfit for work for about four months after her son’s death, received sick pay, would not return to her substantive post, had lost faith in the Council and declined three opportunities to explore redeployment, although she became fit for other work in 2017. Those findings entitled the tribunal to conclude that there was no chance of a return to work with the Council giving rise to financial loss. It was therefore not appropriate to make the type of lump-sum award advanced by the claimant. The awards for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury remained undisturbed.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal, [2026] EAT 142 : refused the appeal against the second tribunal’s decision.
2. Employment Tribunal, 1 April 2025: dismissed the remitted unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability claims and awarded £15,250 plus judicial interest for the unappealed failure to make reasonable adjustments, finding no financial loss flowed from it.
3. Employment Appeal Tribunal, 5 April 2022: allowed the Council’s appeal against the first tribunal’s unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability findings and remitted those claims for rehearing. The findings on harassment and the reasonable adjustment at issue here remained standing because they had not been appealed.
4. Employment Tribunal, 10 March 2020: upheld claims including a failure to make reasonable adjustments by not moving the claimant away from a manager.