Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

In the case of Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh UKEATS/0014/17/JW the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a Claimant’s appeal after the Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying the wrong tests to her discrimination claims.

The facts in Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh

Professor Sheikholesalami (the ‘Claimant’) was a professor in chemical process engineering at the University of Edinburgh (the ‘Respondent’).  The Claimant was originally offered employment on the basis that she would be given a suitable laboratory. There were problems with the refurbishment of the laboratory, which meant that the Claimant was without a working laboratory for nearly two and a half years. She raised grievances about her treatment, alleging sex discrimination. This culminated in her being signed off sick with work related stress. As a result of her complaints a diversity review was undertaken which highlighted cultural problems within the workplace.

Following the review, relationships broke down between the Claimant and other staff members in the school. She wrote a letter stating that she wished to return to work via gradual reintegration through another school but the department suggested instead that she return to work at her existing refurbished laboratory. Eventually, the Claimant was dismissed.  The Respondent argued that this was because her work visa was due to expire. The Claimant complained that the real reason for her dismissal was to avoid the problem of her continued and sustained complaints of gender and disability discrimination.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed because she was not prepared to return to work at the Engineering School and that this triggered the problems with her visa. The reason for her unwillingness to return to work appeared to be her perception that she would be treated badly by her colleagues (which triggered her disability in the first place). The Tribunal dismissed her disability discrimination claim because, it held, it did not have the evidence to say that her dismissal was because of her disability.

With regards to the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments claim, the Tribunal agreed that the Respondent did apply a PCP to the Claimant requiring her to attend work at the School of Engineering. However, it then went on to consider whether the PCP placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her disability. In answering this question, its position was that the Claimant had to prove the PCP placed her at a substantial disadvantage and show that this was because of her disability.  They went on to find that the PCP did not place the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her PCP and accordingly dismissed her claim.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The EAT held that the Tribunal was wrong in its approach to causation. The correct test required the Tribunal to consider whether the unfavourable treatment was because of something arising in consequence of the disability, not because of it.

The correct causation test could encompass several links in a chain of facts and more than one consequence of the disability could be taken into account. The Employment Tribunal had erred in adopting too narrow a test for causation and failing to consider other relevant consequences of the disability.  On the facts of the case, it was clear to the EAT that the disability, the perceived discriminatory treatment that gave rise to it and the Claimant’s reluctance to return to work were interlinked in such a way that could satisfy the broad test for a claim of discrimination arising from a disability.

The EAT also held that the Tribunal erred in its approach to the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments claim because the reasonable adjustments test was not a causation question. It required a comparison exercise with people who are not disabled, and so the Employment Tribunal had been wrong to require causation relating to the substantial disadvantage and medical evidence to prove it.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “When preparing any disability discrimination case, it is important to think carefully about what the Claimant is and isn’t required to show in terms of causation.  This case clarifies that a looser connection involving more than one link in a chain of causation may be permitted for discrimination arising from a disability claims.’

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh UKEATS/0014/17/JW 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

4.76 Average

124 Reviews

Brittany

I was very grateful for Redmans to treat my case with respect and discretion. At the time, I was very new to London and it was meaningful to have someone on my side and win the case for me. Without any doubt, I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to anyone who is in need of it.

Posted 4 months ago

Jake L

Chris is very professional and calm. Very attentive and patient, been a positive experience having Chris represent me, and would recommend him.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent service. It was a pleasure to work with Chris H, who is brilliant at what he does and very efficient. Their Senior Associate Rana T. is also very knowledgeable and resolves any queries speedily and efficiently. My issue could unfortunately not be resolved, but that was due to my employer and not the firm. Redmans however did all they could. I would definitely recommend them.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Very pleasant and quick to deal with. Mnay thanks.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Easy to get hold of. Quick.

Posted 5 months ago

Owen J

Very helpful, efficient service.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

I am very lucky that I worked with Mr. Chris Hadrill and he managed my case very progressively with an analytical approach and trustfully. Of course with a very positive result. I strongly recommend Mr. Hadrill to any one seeking for a successful result from a highly qualified solicitor.

Posted 6 months ago

Kulbir S

Amazing, quick friendly service from Chris from the start and Caroline. They made me feel at ease during a difficult time, they understood and advised accordingly and I am really happy with the outcome of my case. Will always advise anyone who needs legal advice to contact Redmans, I’m so glad that I did and can confidently say I don’t think any other firm could have handled my case any better. Well done guys, wish you all the best and please keep doing what your doing, simply the best!

Posted 6 months ago

Mark A

Excellent service - rapid and “to the point” advice given to ensure meeting the target time frame

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill kept me sane during the negotiations with my employer. He was courteous professional and he cared about doing the best he could for me. I will use Redmans again if ever I need an employment solicitor. Excellent service.

Posted 6 months ago

Muhammad Z

Awesome services. Professionals at their best .

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Thanks for the advice and for negotiating a good outcome. Good to have the support at a very stressful time

Posted 6 months ago

Chloe F

My solicitor at Redmans was very helpful and efficient. Really pleased with the smooth service.

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Chris was absolutely excellent. Clear and concise, offering sound advice.

Posted 6 months ago

Tim O

Experienced and competent advisors

Posted 6 months ago

Rachel A

Quick and expert assistance. I would highly recommend Chris for any of your legal needs.

Posted 6 months ago

Joe S

I was very happy with the service provided by Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. I felt very comfortable discussing all matters with Chris and am very grateful for all the help and guidance I was given throughout the whole process. I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to friends and family!

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

I had a very good experience working with Chris Hadrill during a difficult and emotional time. This held true from the moment I spoke to him on the phone, to the end of the process. Overall, he was attentive, professional and highly supportive. He provided sound advice and clarity. It was the reviews that led me to Redmans! I was very happy to know they were all true. I highly recommend working with Redmans Solicitors. Thank-you to the entire team!

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Good service

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent professional service. Highly recommend.

Posted 6 months ago

Rob O

Very prompt response and I could not fault the service. My solicitor listened carefully to the details of my case and I felt very confident in the advice I was offered. All emails and work done on my behalf with my former employer was of the highest standard and Redmans helped take a lot of the stress out of the situation for me.

Posted 7 months ago