Claimant v Ernst & Young LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Despite extensive medical records over many years, there was no diagnosis of autism or narcissistic personality disorder. The tribunal concluded the claimant's reactions to negative life events, while more extreme than others, were an aspect of personality rather than flowing from any mental impairment. The medical evidence showed issues were situational rather than ongoing, and the claimant was recorded as having no issues at work or school.
The claim for associative disability discrimination (based on the disability of the claimant's wife and son) was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal was bound by Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence which clearly states there is no concept of an associative duty to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant's claim was essentially for failure to account for caring responsibilities, which is not permissible under associative disability discrimination.
Facts
Dr Dymoke was a chartered accountant employed by Ernst & Young from 2013 to 2024, dismissed by reason of redundancy. He claimed disability discrimination based on alleged traits of autism and narcissistic personality disorder, and also brought a claim of associative discrimination based on his caring responsibilities for his disabled wife and son. Despite extensive medical consultations over many years, he was never diagnosed with autism or narcissistic personality disorder. Medical evidence consistently showed his anger issues were situational and related to personal stresses, with no issues reported at work. He notified the respondent of his caring responsibilities in 2017 and his own difficulties in 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Despite the claimant's assertions, the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of autism or narcissistic personality disorder, and his reactions appeared to be personality traits rather than an impairment. The tribunal also struck out the associative disability discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospect of success, being bound by Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence which establishes there is no associative duty to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant retains an unfair dismissal claim to pursue.
Practical note
A claimant cannot succeed in disability discrimination without establishing disability status on the balance of medical evidence, and there is no route to claim associative reasonable adjustments based on a family member's disability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000793/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chartered accountant
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No