United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation (Disability discrimination - Age discrimination) [2023] EAT 73 (18 May 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2023/73.html
Cite as: [2023] EAT 73

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

---

Mr Simon Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation: [2023] EAT 73 (18 May 2023)

Under the respondent's Framework for progression, the claimant made three applications for promotion to a higher grade but was unsuccessful. He also argued that he was deterred from applying again in 2020. It was the claimant's case that the Framework was a provision, criterion or practice that placed him at a disadvantage due to his disability (he suffered from ADHD and a sleeping disorder), such as to give rise to indirect disability discrimination and an obligation to make reasonable adjustments, and that he suffered unfavourable treatment due to something arising in consequence of his disability in that he was unable to meet the Framework standards for progression in terms of attaining a PhD. The claimant also argued that the Framework gave rise to age discrimination. The ET rejected the claimant's claims. The claimant appealed. Held: dismissing the appeal save in relation to the ET's failure to address the indirect discrimination claims relating to events in 2020.

The ET had erred in (i) finding that the respondent could not reasonably have known of the disadvantage suffered by the claimant by the time of his 2018 application; (ii) in its approach to the identification of the PCP; and (iii) in its assessment of disadvantage in respect of the claim of indirect age discrimination. These errors were, however, rendered academic by the ET's further conclusions, in the alternative, on disadvantage in respect of the disability discrimination claims; reasonable adjustments; causation; and objective justification. The appeal would accordingly be dismissed in respect of the ET's judgment insofar as that related to the claimant's applications for progression in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The ET had failed to address the further claims of indirect disability and age discrimination made in relation to events in 2020. This had been part of the claimant's pleaded case and gave rise to an error of law. The appeal would be allowed in this limited respect and these claims remitted for determination.

A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2023] EAT 73