Background
Mr Bryce, who has Asperger’s Syndrome and dyslexia, applied for a team manager position with Coventry City Council. He told the Council about his disabilities and requested adjustments to the interview process because he had difficulty recalling and presenting examples of his experience on the spot. The Council scheduled him as the final candidate of the day, supplied the interview questions 24 minutes in advance, and agreed that interviewers would prompt him or rephrase questions when necessary.
Mr Bryce was not appointed after receiving the lowest score among eight candidates for two posts. He claimed that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments, including by not asking closed questions, and had treated him unfavourably because of matters arising from his disabilities, including stress in interview situations. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims, finding that the Council had made the required adjustments and that he had not been stressed during the interview.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal erred in treating the form of the interview questions as unconnected to the time-related disadvantage. The nature of a question could affect how quickly Mr Bryce could process it and formulate an answer. That error did not alter the outcome of the reasonable-adjustments claim, however: the questions satisfied the National Autistic Society guidance on closed questions, while limiting the interview to questions answerable only by “yes” or “no” would have prevented meaningful assessment of the candidates. The dismissal of that claim was therefore upheld.
The EAT allowed the appeal concerning discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal had relied substantially on an interviewer’s impressions of how a stressed person would behave without considering whether an autistic person might manifest stress differently. Alternatively, if the Tribunal had found that Mr Bryce was stressed but that stress did not affect the result, it had not adequately explained that conclusion.
The EAT rejected Mr Bryce’s attempt to argue that deficiencies in skills such as communication and empathy were themselves consequences of disability that caused his non-selection, because that case had not been pleaded or pursued before the Tribunal. It remitted the section 15 claim to a newly constituted Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing, including consideration of whether stress materially contributed to the decision not to appoint him and, if so, whether that decision was justified.
Key Takeaways
- The form and complexity of interview questions may be relevant to a time-related disadvantage experienced by a disabled candidate.
- An adjustment need not be adopted if it would deprive the recruitment assessment of practical effectiveness; here, questions requiring only “yes” or “no” answers were not a reasonable adjustment.
- A tribunal should not infer an autistic person’s internal level of stress solely from assumptions about how a neurotypical person would display stress.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that employers must assess reasonable adjustments by reference to the particular disadvantage, rather than treating an applicant’s requested measures as necessarily defining the full extent of the duty. At the same time, the duty does not require an employer to use an interview format that cannot meaningfully test the competencies required for the role.
For section 15 claims, decision-makers must carefully distinguish between outward appearance and a disabled person’s actual experience. Where disability may affect how stress is manifested, conventional behavioural assumptions may not provide a sound basis for determining whether stress occurred or influenced an employment decision.