Steedman v East Lothian Council — EAT dismisses appeal over reasonable-adjustments compensation

Case
Karen Steedman v East Lothian Council
Court
Employment Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom)
Judge
THE HONOURABLE LADY POOLE (Lord President of the Court of Session (statutory nominating authority for Scottish EAT judges under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, s.22; specific office-holder at the time of her nomination not separately confirmed), 2025)
Date Decided
24 September 2026
Citation
[2026] EAT 142
Topics
disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, employment compensation, financial loss

Background

Karen Steedman, an employment support worker employed by East Lothian Council, was dismissed on capability grounds in October 2017 after a lengthy absence. In 2020, an Employment Tribunal upheld, among other claims, her complaint that the Council had failed to make a reasonable adjustment: moving her away from the management of a particular manager, JS.

Following an earlier appeal and remittal on other claims, a second tribunal assessed remedy for the unappealed reasonable-adjustments finding. It interpreted the first tribunal’s decision as requiring a transfer within the East Lothian Works team, away from JS’s line management, between 12 October and 29 November 2016. It awarded £15,250 plus £10,178 judicial interest for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury, but no financial loss.

The Court’s Holding

The EAT dismissed Ms Steedman’s appeal. The second tribunal had permissibly interpreted the earlier finding rather than improperly recasting it. It was entitled to conclude that the adjustment was an internal move within East Lothian Works, rather than general redeployment elsewhere in the Council.

The tribunal was also entitled to treat the duty as limited to the period from 12 October to 29 November 2016. By the latter date, Ms Steedman had said that returning to her substantive post was not an option; a move away from JS would therefore no longer have achieved its purpose. On the facts found, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that no financial loss, including a loss-of-chance award, flowed from the failure to make the adjustment.

Key Takeaways

  • A tribunal assessing remedy may interpret an earlier liability decision where that is necessary to identify the discriminatory act.
  • A reasonable adjustment can cease to be reasonable when it would no longer avoid the employee’s substantial disadvantage.
  • A finding of failure to make reasonable adjustments does not automatically establish financial loss or justify a Smith v Manchester or Blamire-style award.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that compensation in discrimination cases remains causation-based. Even where liability for a failure to make reasonable adjustments is established, the claimant must show that the failure caused the financial loss claimed.

It also confirms that tribunals should read prior decisions as a whole when determining remedy, including the practical scope and period of any adjustment previously found to be reasonable.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top