The claimant was employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the Forensic Science Department of the Department of Justice. At the relevant times the claimant had been diagnosed as suffering from fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathy and she alleged disability discrimination. Shortly before an interlocutory hearing the claimant disclosed to the respondents and to the tribunal that she had just been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum and she requested reasonable adjustments to the upcoming hearing.

The tribunal noted that the claimant’s requests were ‘unrealistic’ yet acceded to a number of requests to accommodate the claimant at a ground rules hearing. By the time of the full hearing, the NICA decision in Galo v Bombardier Aerospace [2016] NICA 25 (which we reported on 1/7/16) had been issued, which was a decision that reinforced the need for procedural fairness, especially for claimants under a disability of mental health. Whilst the claims were ultimately dismissed in this case, the tribunal at least made an effort to specifically address the issues the claimant faced.

Practical Lessons

The Tribunal noted that it carefully considered the NICA guidance in Galo but there is a lack of detail as to how it actually did so in practical terms. Galo is a decision that calls for a fundamental culture change to how equality and diversity are safeguarded in courts and tribunals, but it is also about the imperative of identifying claimants who may be under a mental health disability.

In Galo, the respondent employer had been furnished with a copy of a clinical psychologist's report indicating that the claimant suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome but regrettably its significance was never recorded or acted upon throughout the case. The present case demonstrates how a respondent, like the employer here and in Galo, has a role to play in ensuring that any such medical reports they are aware of regarding a claimant are made known to the tribunal to ensure the proper, fair adjustments can be adopted. This must be particularly true when dealing with unrepresented claimants. The alternative, which was thankfully avoided in this case but occurred in Galo, may be an unnecessarily prolonged tribunal case which benefits neither party involved.

This case review was written by John Taggart BL. NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:

http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/