Cases2306423/2023

Claimant v London Borough of Southwark

10 March 2025Before Employment Judge MaceyLondon Southin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found that while the respondent failed to take steps to secure a full reference and this constituted less favourable treatment, the second respondent did not have actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claimant's disability nor did she perceive the claimant as having a disability. The tribunal concluded that the respondent perceived the claimant's anxiety as mild and well-managed with medication, not as having a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Without knowledge or perception of disability, the less favourable treatment could not be because of disability.

Facts

The claimant, a qualified teacher, applied for and was provisionally offered a class teacher role at Victory Primary School in June 2023. The offer was conditional on satisfactory references, DBS check, and medical clearance. A medical screening revealed the claimant had mild anxiety managed with medication. One referee (the Head of his current school) provided an inadequate reference that did not confirm suitability to work with children. The second respondent (Headteacher) withdrew the provisional offer on 18 July 2023 citing an unsatisfactory reference, after making only one unsuccessful attempt to contact the referee to secure a fuller reference.

Decision

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to take adequate steps to secure a full reference and this constituted less favourable treatment. However, the claim failed because the tribunal concluded the second respondent did not have knowledge of the facts constituting the claimant's disability nor perceived him as disabled. The tribunal found she perceived his anxiety as mild and well-managed, not having a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Practical note

In direct disability discrimination claims in recruitment, knowledge or perception of all elements of the statutory definition of disability is required; knowledge that an applicant has anxiety managed with medication is insufficient if the decision-maker perceives it as mild without substantial adverse effect.

Legal authorities cited

Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary v Coffey 2020 ICR 145Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office UKEAT/0016/11Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Limited UK EAT/0213/20/OO

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.39(1)EqA 2010 s.23(1)EqA 2010 s.6EqA 2010 s.212EqA 2010 Schedule 1 para 5EqA 2010 s.13EqA 2010 Schedule 1 Part 1 para 2EqA 2010 s.136

Case details

Case number
2306423/2023
Decision date
10 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
London Borough of Southwark
Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Class Teacher

Claimant representation

Represented
No