The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to consider events which occurred after an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation case of Citizens Advice Merton and Lambeth Ltd v Mefful.
Mr Mefful was a specialist service manager at a Citizens Advice Bureau from 2004 to 2012.
The Bureau started a redundancy process with Mr Mefful. Without telling him, it then decided in March 2012 that it would dismiss Mr Mefful in April 2012.
In April, before the Bureau had the opportunity to dismiss Mr Mefful as part of its redundancy process, he went off sick. This put his redundancy on hold.
Mr Mefful returned from disability-related sick leave in July 2012. He was dismissed, ostensibly by reason of redundancy, in August 2012. His employer was found to have known he had a disability before it dismissed him.
He brought Employment Tribunal claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation, and disability discrimination.
The Tribunal held that Mr Mefful’s dismissal was discriminatory, on the basis of events which took place from April 2012. It found that the primary reason for Mr Mefful’s dismissal was his employer’s view that Mr Mefful “lacked capability and engagement” and it did not wish to manage this, for example, by referring him to occupational health. This was found to be a disability related reason for dismissal.
The Bureau appealed, and the case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The EAT found that “the disability findings are all based on the period from April to July 2012 when [Mr Mefful] was not at work and after the dismissal decision had been taken”, therefore there “was no evidence … to support the conclusion that there was disability related discrimination and direct discrimination in a decision made” to dismiss Mr Mefful in March 2012.
So, it was wrong for the Employment Tribunal to make a finding of disability related dismissal based on events which took place after the employer’s decision to dismiss had already been made.
The Bureau succeeded in this aspect of the appeal and the case was sent back to the Employment Tribunal to reconsider various points.
