Miss D Askew (non qualified) friend For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant worked for the respondent from 4 September 2017 to 30 November 2017 as a probationary Force Control Room Operative and later sought employment with Barclays Bank. Barclays withdrew a provisional offer after receiving a reference dated 17 May 2019, and this case concerned only that reference. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been disabled by reason of Asperger's/autism and that the reference said he had found the role difficult because of his autism and had chosen to leave.

On the section 13 direct discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the reference did not amount to less favourable treatment because of disability. Applying a hypothetical comparator test, it found that a non-disabled person who had experienced the same difficulties in the role would have received the same reference. It also found no evidence that the respondent intended to prevent the claimant from securing future work because of his disability, and concluded that the reference addressed the effect of the disability rather than the fact of it.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's position that there was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely the claimant's difficulty managing the role. However, it found that the respondent's purpose was to give a true, accurate and fair reference to both the claimant and the recipient. Relying on that legitimate aim, the tribunal held that the wording of the reference was rational, responsible, appropriate and reasonably necessary, so the treatment was justified and the claim was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.