Kamean Hussain v London Fire Commissioner

Whether an employer could reasonably have been expected to know of a disability is an objective, fact-sensitive question. The tribunal should assess the reasonableness of further inquiries in context, including their likely value and the employee’s privacy and dignity. An employer need not make every inquiry where there is little or no basis for doing so.

For a claim under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal must assess the specific matter said to arise in consequence of disability. It should not substitute the disability itself for an alleged consequence, and must reconsider justification if it assessed the wrong matter.

The Claimant, a firefighter employed by the Respondent since 2004, appealed on two issues from an Employment Tribunal decision in his discrimination claim. The Respondent accepted that it knew of his dyslexia, a disability, from 14 October 2019. The Tribunal had found that it was not reasonably expected to know of the disability earlier. The first appeal issue concerned the adequacy and timing of the Respondent’s inquiries.

The second issue concerned a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 based on anxiety and depression. The Claimant said that his unwillingness to provide a statement was something arising in consequence of those disabilities. The appeal asked whether the Tribunal had assessed that pleaded consequence, and the related treatment and justification, correctly.

1. The appeal on constructive knowledge was dismissed. The question under Schedule 8 paragraph 20 of the Equality Act 2010 was whether the Respondent could reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant was disabled. That is an objective question for the tribunal that heard the evidence. The reasonableness of inquiries depends on the circumstances and involves balancing the demands of making inquiries, the likelihood of useful results, and the employee’s dignity and privacy. An employer need not make every inquiry where there is little or no basis for doing so: Gallop v Newport City Council, [2014] IRLR 211; A Ltd v Z, [2020] ICR 199; Ridout v TC Group, [1998] IRLR 628; and SoS for Work and Pensions v Alam, [2010] ICR 665.

   The Tribunal had considered whether the inquiries were reasonable. Given the low probability of dyslexia indicated by the July 2018 screening, the Claimant’s long employment, the absence of earlier concerns or indications of effects on day-to-day activities, and the assessments he had undergone, it was entitled to conclude that further inquiries were not reasonably required.

2. The appeal on the section 15 claim was allowed. The agreed issue identified the alleged something arising as the Claimant’s refusal to provide a statement, which he said resulted from anxiety and depression. The Tribunal instead asked whether the treatment was influenced by his mental health. It therefore failed to address the distinction between the disability and its alleged consequence, and did not apply the test referred to in Pnaiser v NHS England, [2016] IRLR 170. The Respondent’s justification argument could not cure that error because the Tribunal had justified the wrong matter.

3. The Tribunal also erred by concentrating on the manager’s motive, contrary to City of York Council v Grosset, [2018] IRLR 746 (CA). The section 15 allegation was remitted to the same Tribunal for fresh consideration by reference to the List of Issues.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal — Dismissed the constructive knowledge ground, allowed the section 15 ground and remitted that issue to the same Tribunal: [2026] EAT 159 .
• Employment Tribunal — Heard the Claimant’s multifaceted discrimination claim over 18 days between January and April 2023. The Tribunal citation is not stated in the judgment.