Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Dr Peter Dunn v The Secretary of State for Justice and HMIP [2018] EWCA Civ 1998, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“the EAT”) that an employee had not been discriminated against by virtue of the fact that his employer’s ill-health retirement procedure was unnecessarily bureaucratic.

The facts in Dr Peter Dunn v The Secretary of State for Justice and HMIP

Dr Dunn was employed by the Secretary of State for Justice (“the Secretary of State”) from November 2010 as a prison inspector.  From late 2012 he suffered a depressive illness and had his first sickness absence due to depression in 2014.  In the middle of 2015 he was diagnosed with a serious heart condition.  His line manager was a Ms Asfar. Whilst she took his illness seriously, she found his case difficult to manage.  In November 2014 Dr Dunn completed an application for ill-health retirement. The process for dealing with his application was elaborate and bureaucratic and there was a long delay in dealing with it. Mr Dunn raised a grievance about the delay and in December 2015 the decision was finally made to allow Dr Dunn to retire on ill health grounds.

Dr Dunn brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (the “ET”) for disability discrimination and harassment arising out of the way he was treated by the Secretary of State in relation to his illnesses.  Dr Dunn identified 16 different complaints.  The Secretary of State never disputed that Dr Dunn’s application was badly handled, but they did deny that their actions or omissions constituted disability discrimination.

The relevant law

Section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) states that: “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others” Disability is a protected characteristic and this is known as “Direct Discrimination”.

Section 15 (1) of the 2010 Act states that: “A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” This is known as ‘Discrimination arising from Disability’.

Of particular importance here in establishing Direct Discrimination and Discrimination arising from Disability is the employer’s “motivation” e.g. what operated on their conscious or unconscious thought processes at the time of the act or omission the employee is alleging is discriminatory.  This is because it is necessary to show that A treated B less favourably ‘because of’ the protected characteristic for Direct Discrimination or “something” which arises in consequence of the disability for Discrimination arising from Disability.

Lastly, section 136 of the 2010 Act states that where there are facts from which a court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that the employer contravened section 13 or 15 of the 2010 Act, the court must hold the contravention occurred, unless the employer can show otherwise.  As a result, it is for the employer to show that discrimination did not occur where the employee establishes a prima facie case.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

In May 2016 the ET dismissed Dr Dunn’s claim of harassment.  With regard to his 16 individual complaints of discrimination, only 3 were upheld, but they were substantial and Dr Dunn was awarded compensation of about £100,000 at the remedy hearing.

The ET found that Dr Dunn had suffered a detriment in that Ms Asfar failed to react adequately to the recommendations contained within an occupational health report obtained in May 2014.  The ET found this constituted Discrimination arising from Disability.

Ms Asfar’s failure to put into place any support mechanisms for Dr Dunn upon his return to work in May 2014 was held to constitute both Direct Discrimination and Discrimination arising from Disability, even though it was not put to Ms Asfar that her failure to make any reasonable adjustments was by reason of Dr Dunn’s disability.  The ET found here that an inference could be drawn which shifted the burden of proof to the Secretary of State to show that their failure to make the reasonable adjustment was not due to Dr Dunn’s disability.  The ET held that the Secretary of State failed to discharge that burden.

The third detriment related to the handling of Dr Dunn’s early retirement application.  The ET found that the unreasonable delay in dealing with it constituted both Direct Discrimination and Discrimination arising from Disability.

The Secretary of State appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”).

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

In March 2017 the EAT held that the ET’s reasoning with regards to the three successful complaints was flawed.

The EAT found that the ET had failed to consider the motivations of the relevant decision makers when considering Dr Dunn’s claims, and that there weren’t any findings that others who were not disabled would not have been treated in the same way.  They also found that the failures on the part of Ms Asfar were due to her incompetence, rather than any discriminatory reason.

The EAT held that if the correct approach had been taken by the ET the three complaints that were upheld would not have succeeded.  Accordingly, they went on to dismiss them without a remittal back to the ET.  They did this because they found nothing in the findings of fact or evidence that could lead a properly directed ET to reach the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of Direct Discrimination or Discrimination arising from Disability.  Dr Dunn appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal (CA)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. They found that Dr Dunn had failed to show a discriminatory motivation on the part of a relevant decision-makers and that the matters he had relied on in front of the ET were incapable in law of forming the basis for an inference of discrimination.  Just because the ill-health retirement procedure was inherently defective in the ways found by the ET, it did not follow that it was inherently discriminatory as well.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Dr Peter Dunn v The Secretary of State for Justice and HMIP

Sacha Barrett, an associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “This case demonstrates that the EAT will take the rare step of substituting their findings rather than remit a case back to the ET where, in their view, the only possible outcome is a finding of no discrimination based on the evidence”.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in  Dr Peter Dunn v The Secretary of State for Justice and HMIP [2018] EWCA Civ 1998 can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.70 Average

76 Reviews

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 week ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 2 weeks ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 3 weeks ago

Colin W

Very professional and thorough. Sachs who dealt with the bulk of my case was excellent Thank you. .

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

I was generally impressed with the fast turn around, efficiency, responsiveness, and consideration of circumstances. I needed a couple of areas of advice quickly and with Redmans help was able to get to a conclusion quickly and with minimum stress. They were friendly and professional throughout - I'd use them again.

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

The guidance and assistance I recently received when using Redman's was fantastic. Caroline & Chris were both very informative and understanding walking me through each step. Thank you.

Posted 1 month ago

Nicola W

Fantastic service, very quick and efficient. Thank you

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent professional service.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

As with All solicitors advice without consequence but understood and communicated my legal position

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Prompt, professional and excellent service.

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic C

Excellent service, prompt and helpful

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Redman’s to be very efficient and got me the best deal available in the short time scale that was available.

Posted 2 months ago

Victor L

Very professional. Provided excellent advice on my Settlement agreement.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Professional from start to finish.

Posted 2 months ago

Oliver W

Excellent service provided by Redmans, will certainly consider using again.

Posted 2 months ago

Melanie H

Very professional and extremely personable service. Thank you very much.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris to be very approachable and easy to speak with about complex matters. He took action quickly and his updates to me, as his client, were prompt. I would recommend Chris and the team at Redmans without hesitation.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Good advice

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Overall happy with the service provided by Chris and Rana.

Posted 2 months ago