Citizens Advice Merton & Lambeth v Mefful [2022] EAT 11

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal (ET) was correct in its judgment that the respondent's interim CEO had taken the definitive decision to dismiss the claimant on 19 March 2012. However, the ET mistakenly considered events after this date when evaluating the reason for dismissal. Furthermore, the ET inaccurately addressed the issues surrounding causation in the claims related to direct disability discrimination, discrimination stemming from disability, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.

Principles Derived:

  1. When evaluating the decision to dismiss an employee, the ET should restrict its examination to events and information available up to and including the date of the dismissal decision.

  2. Proper consideration of causation is crucial in cases of disability discrimination and victimisation. Inaccurate direction on this issue can lead to a flawed judgment.

Facts: The claimant alleged he was unfairly dismissed by the respondent due to his disability and further claimed he was a victim of discrimination. Central to the case was the decision made by the respondent's interim CEO to dismiss the claimant on 19 March 2012.

Application of the Law: While the ET rightfully found that the dismissal decision was taken on 19 March 2012, it erred by incorporating post-March 2012 events into its reasoning. In terms of the Equality Act 2010, the ET did not correctly address causation for the claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination resulting from disability, and victimisation. This misdirection led the EAT to identify these aspects of the judgment as flawed.

For individuals seeking guidance on appealing Employment Tribunal decisions to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, particularly in cases involving dismissal, disability discrimination, and victimisation, this case offers insights into a cases where the ET's findings on the dismissal were upheld but its approach to causation under the Equality Act 2010 was found lacking.

Previous
Previous

Leacy v Building Craft College [2022] EAT 59

Next
Next

All Answers v W [2021] IRLR 612