The claimant had applied for a graduate job with BT.  The claimant’s mother emailed his CV and outlined that her son had Autism Spectrum Disorder and dyslexia and was wanting to avail of the BT Disability Scheme that guaranteed an interview when the minimum criteria was met for the job.    For these jobs, BT also used a Situational Strength Test which presented the candidate with a series of scenarios with the candidate having to rank the responses in order of preference.   This test was not outlined as an essential criterion in the initial job advertisement.

The claimant’s mother worried about how her son would perform in the test but felt that the guaranteed interview would still be upheld.   That being said, the applications were anonymised with the disability information not being forwarded to the application team.  The claimant did not perform well in the test and was informed by email that the application would not be taken forward.

BT stated that it was for the applicant to outline what reasonable adjustments would be required and stated that HR could not do this as they did not have the application until after the test had been completed.  Indeed, the claimant’s mother made BT aware of the EAT decision in Government Legal Services v Brooks [2017] where it was found that a requirement to take part in an online multiple choice test put those with autism at a disadvantage.

The IT found that there had been disability discrimination as BT knew the claimant was a disabled person, but they did not proactively offer to make reasonable adjustments.  On appeal, BT argued that they did not have the requisite knowledge of the disabilities and therefore did not trigger the responsibility to make reasonable adjustments.

The Court of Appeal led by Sir Paul Girvan stated that there was requisite knowledge as the disability was listed on the monitoring form and the duty to make reasonable adjustments lay with the employer.  This was exacerbated by the fact that BT still failed to abide by its commitment to a guaranteed interview when the EAT decision of Brooks had been brought to their attention.

As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal stating that when BT rejected the claimant due to failing the test, that was the primary act of disability discrimination as there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.  The arguments that BT raised that the claimant was still in the competition was given little heed by the Court as they did not rescind the rejection email.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the importance of the duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments when during a recruitment process – the claimant in this case was awarded 12,500 for injury to feelings, in addition to loss of earnings and interest on the award.

The argument that there was no knowledge of the disability did not hold any weight when it had been mentioned on the monitoring form.

Therefore, employers are held to have knowledge of the disability when it is mentioned on the monitoring form and be cognisant of their duty to make reasonable adjustments throughout the process.

PDF of judgement available from Equality Commission here:
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2019/Meier-v-BT-Judgement29July19.pdf

Summary judgement is available here:
https://judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/summary-judgment-court-dismisses-appeal-by-british-telecomunications-disability