Background: 

The claimant was a Grade 6 lecturer at the respondent University.  He wished to be promoted to Grade 7.  The claimant suffered from ADHD and sleep disorder.  Between 2017 and 2019 the claimant was unsuccessful in his three applications for promotion.   The claimant asked, outside of the normal process, to be promoted as a reasonable adjustment based upon his disabilities.  This was rejected and he resigned making several claims.  

Outcome: 

The Tribunal, at first instance, rejected the claimant’s case.  It held that the argument that there should be an alternative assessment process (for promotion) and a new teaching focused role for the claimant was not reasonable.  It was held that the promotion scheme as set out by the respondent was proportionate in achieving its legitimate aims.   The EAT upheld that decision. 

An appeal was made to the Court of Appeal.  The claimant argued that the Tribunal had applied the wrong causation test.  The Tribunal had set out that there should be a business case for the role requested by the claimant and the decision was that there was no business case for that role at the higher grade either in the Faculty at that point or in the three years in which he had unsuccessfully applied through the promotions process.  The Court of Appeal stated that this was essentially a challenge to the ruling on the grounds of perversity.  That required a high threshold for a challenge to be successful.   The business case was regarded as a ‘show-stopper’ – if an able-bodied person applied for promotion on the same grounds they would not have been promoted.  Thus there was no room for the claimant’s disability to play a causal role. It was further found that the policy, that being the promotions policy, was proportionate and justified as was set out by the Tribunal at first instance.  

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

The question regularly arises what is reasonable when considering reasonable adjustments?  Whilst there is no set test that can be applied and it has to be contextualised – this case provides such a context.  This was a case in which the claimant wished to have a separate promotions process as a reasonable adjustment.  In that they would be considered outside of the process as set out.   In this case, the Tribunal, EAT and Court of Appeal have recognised that it would not be reasonable by looking at it through the prism of a business case for that particular role and that the policy was proportionate and justified. 

The full case can be viewed here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/191.html