Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Ruling in Disability Harassment Case Against British Airways
The EAT has dismissed an appeal from a cabin crew member, ruling that an occupational health practitioner's comments did not constitute disability-related harassment.
• public
Tribunal Dismisses Harassment Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mrs T McManus against British Airways plc. The case centred on claims of disability-related harassment arising from an occupational health (OH) assessment in 2022. The claimant, a member of the cabin crew, alleged that several comments made by the OH practitioner during a consultation created a hostile and degrading environment.
Background to the Dispute
The claimant, who suffers from depression, anxiety, and social phobia, had been on long-term sick leave. During a telephone consultation with an OH practitioner, Ms Akuta, the claimant reported that she felt the practitioner's business-like approach was insensitive. Specific complaints included remarks about the claimant's length of support and a comment regarding the Access to Work scheme, which the claimant alleged was demeaning.
The original employment tribunal dismissed all complaints, finding that while the comments were unwanted and related to the claimant's disability, they did not meet the legal threshold for harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal concluded that, in the context of a medical consultation, it was not reasonable for the claimant to perceive the conduct as having the prohibited effect of violating her dignity or creating a hostile environment.
The EAT's Decision
On appeal, the claimant argued that the tribunal failed to properly apply the objective test for harassment. Specifically, it was argued that the tribunal did not sufficiently consider the impact of the claimant's anxiety or the cumulative effect of the practitioner's remarks.
His Honour Judge Auerbach, presiding, rejected these arguments. He noted that the tribunal had appropriately balanced the claimant's subjective perception with the objective reality of the situation. The EAT confirmed that while an employee's mental health is a relevant circumstance, it does not mandate a finding of harassment when a manager or practitioner engages in a legitimate enquiry. The ruling emphasised that the tribunal had read the evidence as a whole and had not erred in law by considering the context of the medical assessment.
Read the entire judgment here: McManus v British Airways plc [2026] EAT 155
