Lingard v Leading Learners Multi Academy Trust EAT 2023 

Mental health conditions and respondents’ knowledge in disability discrimination claims 

With the increase in work related stress at an all-time high (according to a recent YouGov survey) the interface between what is generally referred to as ‘stress’ and an actual diagnosable mental health condition should not be overlooked in relation to Disability Discrimination.  

In the case of Lingard v Leading Learners Multi Academy Trust EAT 2023, the late diagnosis of a Generalised Anxiety Disorder was not sufficient to counter the respondent’s argument that, at the relevant time, it had no knowledge of this impairment and therefore could not be held to have discriminated against the claimant.  

Having been employed by the respondent since 2002 and subsequently securing the role of Head Teacher at a primary school owned and run by the company the claimant resigned. This was in response to the actions of the respondent, in particular the Executive Head Teacher, who she felt was determined to force her to leave the school, indeed behaviour that the Employment Judge described as “aggressive, hostile and unsupportive to the claimant”. 

Submitting a claim of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination the respondent originally refuted the claimant’s condition could constitute a disability under the criteria set out in the Equality Act.  

It was accepted by both sides that the respondent was aware that the claimant had been suffering from hypertension and was also ‘stressed’ and following an Occupational Health report, that the stress was work related but temporary in nature. It was not until the claimant had gone on sick leave that the respondent offered to arrange a psychologist’s assessment. However, as this was to be a condition of them finally addressing an outstanding grievance, and after threats of disciplinary action relating to her performance, which the claimant felt to be the ‘last straw’, her resignation meant the assessment did not take place.  

During the course of the claim it became apparent from the claimant’s disclosed GP notes and evidence from a Hypertension expert, that her symptoms at the relevant time were more indicative of an anxiety disorder and not related to the diagnosed mild hypertension (which on its own would be unlikely to constitute a disability). Further medical evidence was then commissioned (jointly) which found that the claimant was and had been suffering from a Generalised Anxiety Disorder that was likely to have been present for over 12 months prior to the resignation.  

The respondent therefore withdrew its challenge to the question of disability but contended that it did not or could not have reasonably had knowledge of this disability at the relevant time.  

Although the employment judge found that the respondent was aware that the claimant was suffering from ‘stress’, it could not be said that in the circumstances it could be expected to have known that she was actually suffering from a mental health condition capable of being a disability. As such, the actions of the respondent could not amount to less favourable treatment or have placed her at a disadvantage in connection to her disability. The Disability Discrimination claims therefore failed.  

Finding the behaviour of the respondent to constitute a fundamental breach of trust and confidence the constructive dismissal claim succeeded.  

Although the claimant appealed the disability discrimination decision, the EAT agreed with the original judgment.  However, this case does serve as a powerful reminder that where an act/s of discrimination may be connected to a non-physical disability, particularly when the symptoms may be dismissed as ‘just stress’ it is crucial to identify what that condition is or in the absence of a clear diagnosis, how it effects the employee and to ensure, preferably from the outset, and certainly before lodging the claim, that the employer is made aware of it. Without this, as in the instant case, a respondent can defeat even the otherwise strongest of disability discrimination claims. 

Author: Christina Moore, Trade Union Helpdesk Advisor