The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has issued a reprimand to a local authority in...
Employment Tribunals (ETs) have a duty to give sufficient reasons for their decisions so that the parties to a claim can understand why they won or lost. In a recent case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned a finding of indirect disability discrimination because the reasoning behind it was unclear (Minis Childcare Ltd v Hilton-Webb).
A woman had brought multiple claims of disability discrimination against her employer. Her claims were unsuccessful except for one claim relating to her employer providing documents in 'small' font sizes, which she had difficulty reading due to impaired vision. The employer accepted that it adopted a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of providing documents in small font sizes – usually size 11 or 12 – and that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage. The employer contended that the PCP was applied for the legitimate aim of the efficient management of its workforce.
Her claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was rejected because she had not told her employer of her difficulty reading smaller font sizes, and her employer therefore lacked the requisite knowledge. However, her claim of indirect disability discrimination succeeded. The ET stated that there was no legitimate aim for the PCP, and it could not be proportionate when the simple thing to do would be to provide documents in a larger font.
Ruling on the employer's appeal, the EAT considered that, in saying that there was no legitimate aim, the ET could have meant that the employer had not identified an aim; that the aim of efficient management could not be legitimate in any circumstances; that the aim could not be a legitimate reason for applying the PCP; or that the employer had not established that the PCP achieved the aim.
The EAT acknowledged that some of those possibilities were more likely than others, and considered that the first three would involve an error of law. However, as it was not clear what the ET had meant when it stated that there was no legitimate aim, the EAT concluded that the appeal must succeed. The claim was remitted to the same ET for redetermination.
