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

164 Reviews

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 1 week ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Good and quick service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ricky D

Very satisfying to be assured of such attention and professionalism.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent service - thankyou

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Efficient, timely and friendly support and advice

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ahmed S

They are always on hand when you need them and provide support even when its not necessary.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Nemen S

Wonderful experience.Chris was very responsive and provided an excellent service. A real professional who I would recommend to anyone

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Their guidance was clear and they provided me with all the information I required. Friendly yet professional

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris @ Redmans assisted me with an employment issue. Firstly, he was very proactive in coming back to my initial enquiry and then helped to clearly lay out the options that I had in relation to my position. He then assisted with the preparation of my case, which led to a very satisfactory outcome. I would highly recommend the quality of service & professionalism offered by Redmans Solicitors.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Great service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris was very effective and decisive in dealing with my matter. I felt guided, and the pressure to make decisions was taken off my shoulders; he knew what needed to be done and I was happy to follow his advice. The result of the legal dispute was a great success for me. He is also kind and personable. The only thing that I would say it could be improved, is the accuracy of cost estimation at the beginning: not many activites, that could not have been forseen had to take place, but costs went up more than double in the end. Overall very good and trustworthy. I would definately recommend and use Redmans services again.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Liz P

An excellent professional service was provided by Chris Hadrill and Mel Chin. Efficient and trustworthy - would highly recommend this company.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors were great. They were able to advice me quickly and efficiently! I would recommend them, as a good solicitors to use.

Posted 1 month ago