Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Employer Obligations in Disability Discrimination Case
The EAT has issued a new judgment clarifying how employers should assess disability knowledge and handle Section 15 discrimination claims in the workplace.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Hussain v London Fire Commissioner, addressing critical questions regarding an employer's duty to identify disabilities and the correct application of Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
Establishing Constructive Knowledge of Disability
The claimant, a firefighter, argued that his employer should have been aware of his dyslexia well before a formal diagnosis was established in October 2019. He contended that earlier management actions and assessments should have prompted further investigation.
The EAT rejected this ground of appeal. It highlighted that the employer had undertaken reasonable steps, including conducting a screening test which returned a low probability of dyslexia. The tribunal noted that because the employee had worked for 14 years without previously raising concerns, the employer was not required to make exhaustive inquiries when the initial evidence suggested no disability. The judgment reinforces that the test for constructive knowledge is one of reasonableness, depending on the specific facts of each case.
Correct Application of Section 15 Claims
In a separate issue, the EAT upheld the claimant's appeal regarding a claim of discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The case concerned the claimant's refusal to provide a statement regarding a safety issue, which he alleged was a consequence of his anxiety and depression.
The EAT found that the original tribunal erred by focusing on the claimant's mental health as the "something arising" from his disability, rather than the act of refusing to give a statement. The EAT explained that the tribunal failed to distinguish between the mental health condition and the alleged consequence of that condition. Consequently, this aspect of the claim has been remitted to the original tribunal for a fresh hearing.
This ruling serves as a vital reminder for employers and legal practitioners. It confirms that while employers must act reasonably to identify potential disabilities, they are not expected to conduct endless investigations where there is little evidence. Furthermore, it clarifies the necessity for tribunals to strictly adhere to the list of issues when evaluating claims of "something arising" in consequence of a disability.
Read the entire judgment here: Hussain v London Fire Commissioner [2026] EAT 159
