Employment appeal tribunal rules on anonymity in disability discrimination case

Background

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) delivered a significant judgment regarding the anonymity of parties in disability discrimination cases. The case involved an appellant, referred to as 'F', who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, a form of Autism Spectrum Disorder. F had previously concealed his condition from family and employers but disclosed it to his current employer, against whom the claim was brought.

The Appeal

This appeal followed a decision by the Employment Tribunal (ET) at Nottingham, which had refused F's application for anonymity under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The ET's decision was based on an earlier judgment by HHJ Auerbach in 2023, cited as [2023] EAT 92.

F's Concerns

F argued that public knowledge of his disability would severely affect his employability, citing personal experiences and academic research. He insisted that anonymity was crucial for proceeding with his claim. The EAT considered whether the ET had set an unreasonably high standard for F to meet in proving his need for anonymity.

Legal Principles

The EAT examined the legal principles involved, particularly focusing on the need for a reasonable basis for anonymity claims. The tribunal referenced the case of Millicom Services UK Ltd v Clifford [2023] ICR 663, highlighting that a claimant's subjective concerns, even if not well-founded, could justify anonymity if they might prejudice the administration of justice.

Errors in the ET's Decision

The EAT found that the ET had erred by requiring F to provide objective evidence of potential harm to his career. The tribunal noted that proving future events is inherently speculative and that medical evidence could not address societal stigma associated with autism.

The EAT's Conclusion

After reviewing all relevant materials, including the Buckland Review on Autism in Employment, the EAT concluded that F's concerns were genuinely held and had an objective foundation. The tribunal decided that granting anonymity was not contrary to the public interest, as the identity of the parties was not critical to understanding the case.

Outcome

The EAT substituted its decision for the ET's, ruling that both parties should be anonymised throughout the proceedings. This decision was based on the detailed nature of the case, which could inadvertently reveal F's identity if the respondent were not also anonymised.

Learn More

For more information on employment law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.