The appellant employee appealed against decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal not to remit 77 to the Employment Tribunal her claims for disability discrimination against the respondent employer local authority and not to set aside a Costs Order. The appellant had been employed by the local authority since 1986. In July 2005, she sustained a shoulder injury following a fall at home and was absent from work for the rest of 2005. She returned to work in February 2006 but had further periods of absence due to work-related stress. She worked from home from February until September 2007.

The local authority undertook a staffing review and decided to abolish her position. She was dismissed and her attempts to secure redeployment were unsuccessful. It was accepted that the appellant did have a physical disability as a result of her injury, but there was an issue about whether she had mental disability by reason of her depression and anxiety disorder. From February 2006 she had been receiving counselling and medication to help with sleep and insomnia.

The Tribunal concluded that she was not disabled by reason of a mental impairment. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s various claims for disability discrimination except a claim of disability discrimination by reason of the failure to make reasonable adjustment to accommodate her physical disability and enable her to work at home. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay 50 per cent of the local authority's reasonable costs.

The EAT concluded that there had been an error of law because the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the counselling was relevant to the deduced effect of the appellant's illness under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Sch.1 para.6. However, it concluded that none of her claims for discrimination arising out of such disability would have succeeded. It therefore upheld the Tribunal's decisions and the Costs Order. An appeal to the Court of Appeal has also been rejected. http://bit.ly/11wdOUE