Steedman v East Lothian Council: EAT upholds narrow reading of reasonable adjustments finding

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has rejected a challenge to how a remitted employment tribunal interpreted an earlier finding that a council failed to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee. In Steedman v East Lothian Council [2026] EAT 142, Lady Poole also declined to disturb a compensation award that included nothing for financial loss.

Karen Steedman, an employment support worker, was dismissed on capability grounds in October 2017 after a lengthy absence. In 2020 a tribunal upheld her claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment. The discrimination finding included a failure to move her work away from the management of a particular manager to another team or manager.

The council appealed in part. In April 2022 the EAT allowed the appeal on unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability and remitted those claims. The unchallenged reasonable adjustments and harassment findings stood. In April 2025 the second tribunal dismissed the remitted claims and awarded £15,250 plus judicial interest of £10,178 for the adjustments failure.

Ms Steedman argued that the second tribunal impermissibly recast the earlier finding, which she said was open-ended in time. That tribunal had concluded that the adjustment was a transfer within the East Lothian Works team between 12 October and 29 November 2016. She contended that the error affected its treatment of her other claims.

Lady Poole found no error of law. A tribunal assessing remedy must identify the discrimination found, and interpreting earlier decisions is part of its ordinary function. The first judgement referred to a "similar type of move" to one arranged in 2014, which pointed to a transfer within the team rather than general redeployment. Ms Steedman had also declined three opportunities to take part in the redeployment process.

The start date reflected the meeting on 12 October 2016 at which a move was raised. The end date reflected 29 November 2016, when Ms Steedman said a return to her substantive post was not an option. Relying on HM Prison Service v Johnson and Hindmarch v North-East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust, the judge said an adjustment ceases to be reasonable if it would not avoid the disadvantage. The first tribunal's reasoning on dismissal also did not rely on the adjustment, suggesting no continuing duty at that point.

The second tribunal had enough information to decide the point, and fairness did not require referral back, particularly as the parties had agreed it should determine remedy if possible. Grounds two and three, which the parties accepted depended on the first, also failed.

On compensation, Ms Steedman said the tribunal should have recognised the chance she would have returned to work had the adjustment been made, for example through a lump sum award under Smith v Manchester or Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority. Applying DPP Law v Greenberg, Lady Poole read the decision as a whole. The tribunal had set out agreed issues on financial loss and concluded that none flowed from the failure.

That conclusion rested on findings that Ms Steedman was unfit for work for about four months from October 2016 and received sick pay, that a return to her substantive post was not an option from at least the end of November 2016, and that she had lost faith in the council by September 2017. She declined redeployment opportunities and became fit for other work in 2017. The EAT inferred that the tribunal saw no chance of a return that would sound in a financial award.

The appeal was refused. Mark Allison, advocate, instructed by Legal Services Agency, appeared for Ms Steedman. Brian Napier KC, instructed by Harper Macleod, appeared for the council.