Mr D Boland v Office for National Statistics — 2025

The claimant, who is autistic and whose disability was accepted by the respondent, applied for a Front End Technical Lead role. The tribunal found that the respondent provided the recruitment documentation required by the Civil Service Commission Recruitment Principles, including the essential criteria and role profile, and that the claimant was given 24 hours' written notice of the interview questions with agreed adjustments for the interview process.

On the s.15 Equality Act 2010 claim, the tribunal accepted that non-appointment was unfavourable to the claimant as an outcome, and that he sometimes had disability-related communication difficulties involving sensory overload. It found, however, that he was not appointed because his interview answers did not evidence the required past experience, particularly for communicating between technical and non-technical audiences and mediating and mending relationships. The tribunal found that this was not because of disability-related communication difficulties and, in any event, that the respondent's process was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of appointing a Front End Technical Lead who demonstrated all essential skills and achieved the highest score across the skill areas.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted some alleged practices were PCPs, including a panel interview, assessing the ability to mediate and mend relationships, and requiring oral answers in the interview. It found that other alleged PCPs were not established, including a requirement to continue after the claimant's meltdown or to answer while reading from a script. The tribunal found that the respondent had agreed and applied the claimant's requested adjustments, varied them when he requested, and reinstated them after the meltdown; it also found that the claimant reassured the panel that he was able and willing to continue.

The tribunal rejected the proposed further adjustments as either not reasonable, not requested at the time, already effectively provided, inconsistent with the advertised fair and open process, or not shown to address a substantial disadvantage. The claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were therefore dismissed, and remedy issues did not arise.