Hello welcome back to our case of the week. Last week, we looked at Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education involving the dismissal of a Christian teacher for preaching his religious views.  For those who missed it, you can find it here. This week we are looking at the case of Ian Escudier v Coca-Cola on identifying disability claims.

Background

The claimant, Ian Escudier, brought a claim against Coca-Cola in a quest to determine if his health conditions qualify as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. Mr Escudier was dismissed from Coca-Cola in July 2022, following a series of incidents that led to a final written warning for misconduct. With a history of neurological issues stemming from a workplace injury, he ticked boxes for both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination on his claim form.

The Employment Tribunal Decision

The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Escudier’s conditions—Cough Syncope and anxiety/depression—did not amount to a disability. This decision was based on the Tribunal’s belief that the claimant’s symptoms, such as short-term blackouts and dizziness, did not significantly disrupt his daily activities. However, Mr Escudier’s argued that these episodes greatly impacted his life. Despite this, the Tribunal ruled that it did not.

Key Findings from the EAT

Mr Escudier sought a reconsideration, which was denied, leading him to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT criticised the Tribunal’s reliance on its own assumptions rather than medical facts about how someone with this condition would behave. There was medical evidence supporting the diagnosis of Cough Syncope, including blackouts occurring twice a week and referral to a neurologist. The EAT examined whether the Tribunal had overlooked crucial aspects of Mr Escudier’s condition. EJ Eady questioned whether losing consciousness multiple times a year could genuinely be deemed insignificant.

The EAT found that the Tribunal’s decision was flawed and ‘perverse’ in not recognising that the frequent loss of consciousness episodes (five times a year) could have a substantial adverse impact on normal day to day activities.

It was also an error for the Tribunal to dismiss the possibility that the condition might last more than twelve months, given the claimant’s ongoing medical treatment and follow-up. The EAT noted that if someone loses consciousness, even temporarily, it could have a substantial adverse effect on their ability to perform everyday tasks. The EAT remanded the case back to a new Tribunal for a fresh look at the disability issue related to Cough Syncope.

Takeaway Points

This case is a reminder of the complexities surrounding disability claims in the workplace. Employers should note that employees who have short-term, episodic impairments such as loss of consciousness can potentially meet the definition of a disability if they have substantial effects on day-to-day activities and are likely to recur over a long period.