Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules in Favour of Social Worker in Disability Discrimination and Compensation Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ordered a tribunal to reconsider future loss of earnings and pension compensation in a disability discrimination and dismissal case.
• public
Background of the Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered a significant judgment regarding compensation following a successful claim for indirect disability discrimination and unfair constructive dismissal. Nicola Griffiths, a former social worker at Essex County Council, originally brought the claim after experiencing a series of management failures, including being excluded from an internal investigation regarding complaints made against her.
While the initial Employment Tribunal upheld her claims, it awarded a remedy that left certain aspects of her financial loss unaddressed. Ms Griffiths appealed the decision, specifically challenging the tribunal's refusal to award future loss of earnings and its calculation of pension loss. Essex County Council cross-appealed, questioning the tribunal's decision to link the discrimination to the constructive dismissal.
Tribunal Errors in Compensation Assessment
His Honour Judge James Tayler, presiding over the EAT, dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal. The judge found that the Employment Tribunal had correctly determined that the indirect disability discrimination was an effective cause of the claimant's resignation, as it permanently damaged her trust and confidence in the employer.
However, the EAT allowed the claimant's appeal. The tribunal had concluded that no future loss of earnings was warranted, suggesting the claimant would soon find a new role. The EAT noted that this was an error. Even if the claimant secured alternative employment, such as the position she was offered with the military, the salary was lower than her previous role with the council. By failing to account for the potential earnings gap, the tribunal did not properly compensate the claimant for her ongoing financial loss.
Furthermore, the EAT found the pension loss calculation to be inadequately reasoned. The tribunal failed to refer to the standard principles for compensating pension loss, opting instead for a rough estimation of £20,000 without sufficient justification or analysis of whether ongoing pension loss would occur.
Next Steps
The case has been remitted to the original Employment Tribunal for a fresh assessment of future loss of earnings and pension compensation. The EAT determined that this is the most proportionate approach, given that the original panel has already established extensive findings of fact that remain unchallenged.
Read the entire judgment here: Griffiths v Essex County Council [2026] EAT 86
