The claimant had worked for the respondent as an administrative officer for twenty-two years.  The role was largely computer based.   In 2014 she had developed blurred vision in one eye after a hemiplegic migraine. It was agreed that this satisfied the definition of a disability for the purpose of the legislation.  Alongside developing the blurred vision, the respondent had changed its computer hardware with screens that had less resolution.  This made it extremely difficult for the claimant to continue the work, due to the blurred vision.

The respondent undertook a risk assessment and screen-magnification was recommended as an adjustment.   There were difficulties in implementing the screen-magnification with the claimant taking a leave of absence and later sick leave.   Following an occupational health report, a grievance was lodged claiming that the respondent failed to ensure the health and wellbeing of the claimant.

Throughout the grievance process, the claimant had been moved from her role within debt management to a different one based on paper, rather than computer. In an internal investigation, the grievance was upheld, and the claimant sought compensation but only received an apology from the respondent.   For this reason, Tribunal proceedings were commenced.

The claim was based upon Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in NI), citing disability discrimination, as well as a failure to make reasonable adjustments.  At first instance, the Tribunal upheld the discrimination claim but dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim.   This was on the basis that the adjustments made were reasonable.   The respondent appealed this to the EAT who allowed the appeal, citing that the findings of fact made by the Tribunal were such that the discrimination claim should have been dismissed.  The findings of fact related to the claimant’s removal from the debt management department, the process for the grievance and the issue of stress.

The claimant appealed this to the Court of Appeal.   It was held that the failure to deal with the grievance in a timely manner was ‘deplorable’ but there was no evidence to show that the delay was in any way related to the claimant’s disability.

The second issue was the removal from the debt management department.   The EWCA held that there was no evidence to show that the move was ‘unfavourable’ as required for discrimination.   Even if it were shown to be unfavourable, the court held that it would have been a reasonable and proportionate move, considering the problems with working on computer and the new role was based on paper.  With the failure to shield the claimant from stress, it was held that the Tribunal at first instance had wrongly interpreted the failure to have it in the respondent’s list of issues as acceptance.  This was not the case, and further engagement with the manager’s thought processes would have been required to come to a finding on that matter.  Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Practical Lessons: This case demonstrates the distinction that can be drawn between a grievance procedure that has been carried out somewhat shoddily and attempting to make a claim at the Tribunal.   The Court of Appeal outlined that the claimant was right to feel aggrieved but that there was nothing to show that there was unfavourable treatment given to the claimant as a result of her disability.  The burden is initially on the claimant to demonstrate that there has been unfavourable treatment and where that has not been overcome then the fact there has been a grievance is otiose.

Bean LJ, giving the lead decision, said:

“Mrs Robinson was not well treated by the DWP after her hemiplegic migraine, and her sense of grievance is understandable. Nevertheless, like Kerr J, I consider that the ET were bound by their findings of fact not only to reject the reasonable adjustments claim but to reject the s 15 claim as well. I would therefore dismiss this appeal.”
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Robinson-Final-Judgment.pdf