Recruitment: Disability Discrimination and Adjustments for Candidates
16th May, 2017
Was a job applicant who suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome indirectly discriminated against by being required to sit a multiple choice “Situational Judgement Test” (SJT) as part of a recruitment process?
The EAT in The Government Legal Service v Brookes  UKEAT/0302/16 concluded that she was.
The Applicant had applied for a job at Government Legal Service (GLS) and was informed that she would be required to take part in the SJT as part of the recruitment process. The Applicant requested that she be allowed to answer the questions in the form of short narrative written answers.
GLS refused arguing that the Applicant could not show that the form of testing method put those with Asperger’s, or the Applicant herself, at a particular disadvantage and further to this, the requirement was objectively justified as a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim.
The Applicant failed the test and claimed disability discrimination.
The ET found that GLS had indirectly discriminated, failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and had treated her unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability.
It concluded that the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) to require candidates to undergo the SJT put people such as the Applicant, as a group, at a disadvantage compared with those who did not have Asperger’s. Further to this the ET found that the PCP put the Applicant at such a disadvantage. The ET went on to consider whether the PCP could be objectively justified to serve a legitimate aim. It concluded that whilst the PCP served a legitimate aim, to ensure recruitment of persons of the right calibre, the means of achieving that aim were not proportionate and such a test was not the only option available to GLS. The claim relating to failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded on similar reasoning and the claim for discrimination because of something arising in consequence of a disability, the ET found, would be either successful or unsuccessful with the indirect discrimination claim. Accordingly, it was successful.
GLS appealed, however, the EAT agreed with the ET’s decision and its reasoning.
This recent EAT decision demonstrates the importance of assessing your recruitment processes on a case by case basis. It also illustrates that if an applicant has a disability and asks for an adjustment to your business’ recruitment process which is reasonable then you should consider it and if needed take advice on proceeding. Should you need guidance regarding your recruitment practices and whether a request for an adjustment to your recruitment process is reasonable, please contact our Employment Department.
You might also be interested in...
22nd November, 2018
Family Law Partner Sandy Edwards believes there is. Next week, from 26 to 30 November, Resolution, an organisation of 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals, will be promoting “Good Divorce Week” which will focus on how separating and divorcing couples can put their children’s needs first and limit the impact of conflict. The week falls during the government’s divorce... Read More »
16th November, 2018
It is reported that a quarter of all complaints dealt with by the Legal Ombudsman revolve around costs. Therefore to avoid complaints and confusion, it is important to be clear from the outset. The new Transparency Rules (which the SRA have now confirmed will come into effect on 6 December 2018) require that accurate and relevant information is... Read More »
5th November, 2018
Aaron & Partners LLP has once again seen improved rankings in The Legal 500 – a comprehensive guide... Read More »