DWP Faces Mixed Tribunal Results in Long-Running Disability Discrimination Case
The DWP has seen both successes and setbacks in a complex disability discrimination case, with the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturning key decisions.
• public
DWP in Tribunal Battle Over "Employee Deal"
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has recently faced scrutiny in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a case brought by Mr H Ahmed, a former Work Coach at Washwood Heath Jobcentre in Birmingham. The case, Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions, involved multiple appeals heard together, addressing allegations of disability discrimination and procedural fairness in earlier tribunal decisions.
Appeal 1: "Employee Deal" Dispute Dismissed
The first appeal concerned the DWP's refusal to allow Mr Ahmed to re-join the "Employee Deal" in 2020. This deal, introduced in 2016, offered enhanced pay for employees committing to flexible working hours. Mr Ahmed had initially opted out. The tribunal agreed that refusing his application was unfavourable treatment. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The tribunal found other reasons for dismissing the complaint and also dismissed the reasonable adjustment complaint. The EAT upheld this dismissal.
Appeal 2: Issue Estoppel Argument Fails
The second appeal challenged the dismissal of Mr Ahmed's seventh tribunal claim. This claim related to a renewed opportunity to join the Employee Deal in 2022, which Mr Ahmed sought to join while maintaining his existing working hours. He argued that the DWP's response breached the duty of reasonable adjustment. The EAT found that the tribunal had erred in applying issue estoppel, incorrectly claiming the matter had already been decided in the previous claim. This appeal was allowed, meaning the claim can proceed.
Appeal 3: Tribunal Procedure Deemed Unfair
The third appeal centred on Mr Ahmed’s fourth claim, concerning race and disability discrimination related to a disciplinary process and a grievance. A series of events led to the tribunal panel conducting the hearing remotely. This was despite initial directions for an in-person hearing. The EAT determined this decision was wrong. Following Mr Ahmed’s absence on day three, the tribunal dismissed his claim. The EAT considered this decision unfair, and so the appeal was allowed.
Key Points of the EAT Decision
His Honour Judge Auerbach presided over the appeals, addressing critical issues such as:
- The definition of "unfavourable treatment" under the Equality Act 2010.
- The application of issue estoppel in preventing repetitive claims.
- The importance of fair procedure in Employment Tribunal hearings, including the proper use of remote hearing technology.
Impact on Employers
This case serves as a reminder to employers of several key principles. It highlights the importance of consistent application of policies, such as the "Employee Deal", while remaining flexible enough to accommodate the needs of disabled employees. Furthermore, it stresses the need for Employment Tribunals to ensure fairness and clarity in their procedures. Particularly when using remote hearing technology, decisions should be made carefully and with due consideration for all parties involved.
What's Next?
Claims 4 and 7 will now proceed to be reheard. However, claim 5 has been dismissed.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr H Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions [2025] EAT 176
