R Bryce v Coventry City Council

Under the Equality Act 2010, a proposed adjustment must be assessed against the particular substantial disadvantage. An adjustment request may inform what the employer knows, but it does not determine the full range of steps that may be reasonable. The form of interview questions may affect the time needed to process them. An adjustment is not reasonable where it prevents the assessment from testing required competencies, if the disadvantage is difficulty responding quickly rather than an inability to provide examples. For a section 15 claim, the Tribunal must decide whether the identified consequence of disability arose and materially contributed to the unfavourable treatment. It must assess evidence in light of the claimant’s disability. A new causal case cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.

The claimant, who had Asperger’s Syndrome and dyslexia, applied for a team manager role with Coventry City Council. He requested adjustments to the interview, including advance access to questions, because he had difficulty providing examples of his skills quickly. The Council did not appoint him.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. On appeal, he challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of closed questions, its finding that he was not stressed during the interview, and its decision not to find that his lack of demonstrated communication and other skills arose from his disability. The central questions were whether the reasonable adjustments duty had been properly assessed and whether the Tribunal had adequately determined the section 15 claim.

1. Reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal erred in concluding that changing the form of the questions could not be connected to the disadvantage caused by the time PCP. Question form can affect the time needed to process and answer a question. A contrary conclusion required an explanation. The Tribunal also misstated the law when it treated the adjustments requested by the claimant as defining the steps the Council needed to consider. The employer’s knowledge of the disadvantage and the reasonableness of possible adjustments are related, but a request is not determinative of the adjustment required: see Project Management Limited v Latif UKEAT/0028/07.

2. Those errors did not alter the result. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the questions asked were closed questions within the National Autistic Society guidance and that the Council had made that adjustment. The claimant’s proposed version, requiring questions answerable only yes or no, was not reasonable on these facts. It would have prevented candidates from giving examples of their competencies and would have overcorrected a disadvantage that concerned answering quickly, not an inability to provide examples. The reasonable-adjustments appeal was dismissed.

3. Discrimination arising from disability. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant was not stressed was not open to it on the reasoning given. It relied on an interviewer’s impressions, including an inference about the claimant’s decision not to share his screen, without asking whether a person with the claimant’s disabilities might manifest stress differently from a neurotypical person. The Tribunal’s reasons were also ambiguous as to whether it found that stress had not arisen or that it had arisen but did not cause the non-appointment. The section 15 appeal succeeded. Applying the approach in Pnaiser v NHS England UKEAT/0137/15/LA, the Tribunal must determine whether stress arose and materially contributed to the decision, and, if so, whether that decision was justified.

4. The claimant could not advance a new case that his lack of demonstrated skills was itself something arising from disability. That case had not been pleaded or pursued below, and recasting the agreed issues to include it would risk unfairly ambushing the Council. This ground was dismissed.

5. The section 15 claim was remitted for a fresh hearing. The EAT could not substitute its own decision because the relevant factual assessment had to be remade. Having considered the guidance in Sinclair Roche and Temperley and ors v Heard and anor [2004] IRLR 763, the EAT directed remission to a new Tribunal, taking account of the time elapsed, the short original hearing, potential difficulties reconstituting the panel, and flaws in the original reasoning.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal — In [2026] EAT 153 , the appeal succeeded on the section 15 stress issue and that claim was remitted to a new Tribunal. The remaining grounds were dismissed.
2. Employment Tribunal — Employment Judge Childe and members dismissed the claimant’s disability discrimination claims in a liability judgment sent to the parties on 17 October 2023. No citation for that judgment is stated.