In an important landmark case in the development of disability discrimination, the Court of Appeal upheld a claim brought by a disabled teacher against City of York Council.

Mr Grosset was employed by the Council as a teacher, Head of English. He is disabled, suffering from cystic fibrosis, a serious disease of which his employer was aware. Various reasonable adjustments had been made for his disability when he started employment, but unfortunately as proper records were not kept, when a new headteacher started increasing pressure was put upon Mr Grosset and he started to suffer from stress in managing an increased workload. In part, he was unable to absorb additional work in his own time due to the exercise regime required to keep his disease under control. This led to a very high level of stress.

During this period of high stress, Mr Grosset was subject to summary dismissal for gross misconduct as the result of showing an inappropriate film to a class of 15 year olds without parental consent or school approval. Mr Grosset agreed that screening the film was inappropriate but maintained the position that the error in judgment was due to the high stress the school had placed him under, with which the school did not agree.

Mr Grosset therefore brought a range of claims, some of which were successful. In particular, the claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were considered and “..the ET unanimously found that the claimant's claim of breach of section 15 Equality Act 2010 in relation to his dismissal was made out whilst at the same time ruling, by a majority, that his claim of unfair dismissal based on section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 should be dismissed”. This was upheld on appeal to the EAT.

Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 describes discrimination arising from disability as:

●      unfavourable treatment of a person because of 'something' arising in consequence of a person's disability; and

●      the unfavourable treatment cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Court of Appeal considered whether a) the Council treated Mr Grosset unfairly because of an identified 'something' and b) did that 'something' arise in consequence of his disability. It found that Mr Grosset was dismissed because he showed the inappropriate film. It went on to find that Mr Grosset showed the film as a result of exceptionally high levels of stress, which arose from the effect of his disability when new and increased demands were made of him at work.

The Court of Appeal found that it did not matter that the Council did not know that his disability was connected to the misconduct. Additionally, had reasonable adjustments been made for Mr Grosset he would not have suffered such high levels of stress which resulted in his error of judgement.

The Court of Appeal held there was no inconsistency between the rejection of the unfair dismissal claim and the upholding of the claim for disability discrimination. The first test is about the band of reasonable responses and allowed the Council significant latitude of judgment. By contrast  the test under section 15 of the Equality Act is an objective one according to which a tribunal makes its own assessment.

In cases of disability discrimination it is always important to consider individual circumstances, any disabilities or other protected circumstances, and potential mitigating factors when assessing how to proceed in a situation of summary dismissal for gross misconduct.