Employment Appeal Tribunal Dismisses Victimisation Claim Against Renfrewshire Council
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed a victimisation appeal, ruling that the claimant's transfer was due to a complaint, not a protected act.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Decision in Victimisation Dispute
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected an appeal brought by Mr Stephen Leighton against his former employer, Renfrewshire Council. The case, which centred on allegations of victimisation, concluded with the EAT finding no legal error in the original tribunal's reasoning regarding causation.
Background to the Claim
The dispute arose after the claimant, a team leader in the council's Autism Connections service, provided support to a disabled client, known as Mr A. Although this assistance was outside his standard duties, he received management permission to proceed. Following this, a complaint was filed regarding the support provided and alleged breaches of confidentiality. Consequently, the council moved the claimant to alternative duties while an investigation took place. The claimant asserted that his support for the client constituted a protected act and that his subsequent reassignment amounted to victimisation.
EAT Findings on Causation
The original Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the claim, determining that the decision to move the claimant was motivated by the complaint, which it deemed separable from the alleged protected act. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ET had applied an incorrect "but for" test of causation.
The Honourable Lady Haldane, presiding over the appeal, acknowledged that the ET had erred in its assessment of what constituted a protected act. Specifically, the tribunal had incorrectly focused on whether every interaction with the client was a protected act, rather than the specific support provided. However, the EAT found that the ET had correctly addressed the issue of causation. It concluded that the complaint was the primary reason for the employer's actions, a finding that remained robust despite the error regarding the protected act. Because both grounds of appeal were inextricably linked, the appeal was ultimately refused.
Read the entire judgment here: Leighton v Renfrewshire Council [2026] EAT 95
