Crown Prosecution Service v Fraser, [2014] EqLR 535
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employers' appeal, upholding the original employment tribunal's decision to grant the claimant's application for a review concerning disability discrimination during a period of sick leave.
Key Principles
When making judicial decisions, tribunals have an obligation to consider the mental impairments of claimants and its potential impact on their participation in proceedings.
The guidelines provided in the Equal Treatment Bench Book serve to aid judges in understanding and managing cases involving claimants with mental disabilities.
Fair treatment of individuals with disabilities in legal proceedings is crucial, with considerations extending to those self-representing.
Facts and Application of the law
The claimant, who suffered from anxiety and depression, alleged disability discrimination, arguing that his employers treated him detrimentally during a sick leave period. During the remedy hearing, the claimant failed to present due to his mental health condition. The initial tribunal accepted his disability but denied compensation for exacerbation of his condition due to a lack of medical evidence. Upon the claimant's application for a review, the tribunal, considering his mental health status and its possible influence on the litigation process, revoked its prior decision, mandating a new hearing.
The employers appealed, challenging the tribunal's handling. However, the EAT emphasised the importance of accommodating individuals with mental disabilities in legal proceedings. They pointed to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which provides guidance on ensuring fairness and sensitivity towards such individuals, especially given the stressors of litigation. The EAT confirmed the original tribunal's duty to recognise the potential effects of the claimant's mental impairment on the case's conduct, dismissing the employer's appeal.
For those considering appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the employment tribunal, this case underscores the significance of understanding and adapting procedures for claimants with mental health challenges, even in the absence of explicit medical evidence.
