Disability : Harassment
The Claimant has dyspraxia. This causes the Claimant to have difficulties with handwriting. The Claimant also suffers from pain when handwriting and can only write for a few minutes at a time. He qualified as a ‘Teach First’ teacher and was appointed to teach at the Respondent’s School. However, at a meeting on 7 September 2016, the Headteacher, Mr Rowland expressed surprise at his difficulty with writing and made remarks which the Claimant perceived to amount to harassment related to disability. On 8 September 2016, the Claimant was told that he would be suspended and required to stay at home until the issues raised were considered further. The Claimant raised a grievance and subsequently resigned claiming that he had been the victim of direct disability discrimination and harassment. The Tribunal dismissed his claims finding that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for Mr Rowland’s conduct to be regarded as constituting harassment.
The Claimant appealed on the ground that the Tribunal had taken the wrong approach to harassment in that it had treated the question of whether it was reasonable for the impugned conduct to have the proscribed effect as determinative, whereas s.26(4), EqA merely required each of the factors (i.e. perception, circumstances and reasonableness) to be taken into account. The Claimant also contended that the Tribunal had erred in relation to his claim of direct disability discrimination in failing to give effect to its own finding that the reason for the Claimant’s suspension was his disability, namely his difficulty in handwriting.
Held: Appeal dismissed. As to the first ground, the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to harassment. It had applied the approach set out in Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291 which was that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him, then it should not be found to have done so. As to the second ground, the Tribunal had not misapplied its own findings. Its conclusion was that he had been suspended because of his difficulties with handwriting. That was a finding that treatment was because of the adverse effect of an impairment or of something arising from disability; it was not a finding that the treatment was because of the disability – whether dyspraxia or some other unspecified physical or mental impairment – itself.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0096 – 18 – 2102
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635818