In person For the v Respondent — 2020

This remitted hearing concerned two disability discrimination issues arising from the Respondent's August 2012 requirement that the Claimant complete an online Civil Service Initial Sift Test as part of a promotion exercise to Grade O. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant was disabled by depression, and said the remitted issues were to be decided by reference to that condition rather than dyslexia. It also noted that he had taken an online test in 2010 during the BDDP, but that the 2012 CSIST was a different test.

On the indirect discrimination complaint under s.19, the Tribunal revisited the EAT's criticism of its earlier proportionality analysis. It accepted that the Respondent's legitimate aims were to carry out a fair and objective sift and to ensure basic competency requirements for a large number of applicants, and it found that the CSIST remained a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The Tribunal said there was no evidence of a wider discriminatory effect and treated the online test as a well-known preliminary recruitment filter.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint under ss.20-21, the Tribunal held that the Claimant had not shown that his depression caused him a substantial disadvantage in taking the test. It referred to the contemporaneous occupational health and therapist material, the Claimant's own evidence, and Dr Black's later letter, but concluded that the evidence did not show inability at the point the PCP was applied. It also found that the Claimant's difficulties were largely expressed as lack of confidence and that his submissions during the remitted hearing repeatedly focused on dyslexia, which was not the disability relied on for this issue.

Even if substantial disadvantage had been established, the Tribunal held that the proposed adjustments were unreasonable. It noted that alternatives had been offered, including extra time, support during the test, a separate room and PC, or a paper exercise, but the Claimant rejected those options and would not take the test in any format. The Tribunal also rejected the suggestion that slotting him into a higher-grade role was a reasonable adjustment to the test requirement, and it therefore dismissed the remitted reasonable adjustments complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed both remitted complaints and allowed the Respondent's costs application. It recorded that the earlier costs award of £5,000 against the Claimant was reinstated, and in its reasons it also noted the earlier £500 deposit order on the first claim.