Case Details

Jones v. Post Office (CA)

[2001] EWCA Civ 558, [2001] IRLR 384, Court of Appeal

Less favourable treatment is justified if, but only if, the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.  The Court of Appeal indicated that this was a low threshold test and said that a tribunal could not substitute its own assessment for that of an employer.  The case was about whether it was safe for a diabetes sufferer to drive a delivery van. The employer had obtained and acted upon suitably qualified and expert medical opinions. The driver and his expert disagreed with the assessment.  However where a properly conducted risk assessment provides a reason which is on its face both material and substantial, and it not irrational, a tribunal must find the reason justified and cannot substitute its own appraisal.

Where an employer makes no assessment and does not follow appropriate advice or makes an irrational decision, this may be unjustified and the Court of Appeal drew a parallel with the range of reasonable responses test.  It is necessary for a tribunal to determine as a fact what was the reason for the treatment.  Then it may only apply a two stage test.  "Material" denotes the quality of the connection which must exist between the employer's reason and the circumstances of the particular case.  There must be a reasonably strong connection between the employer's reason and the circumstances.  The requirement for the employer's reason to be "substantial" means that the reason must carry real weight and thus be of substance.  The reason does not have to be right, just of substance.  Therefore as long as the employer’s reason is properly connected to the circumstances of the case and of real substance, it is very difficult for an employee to allege disability-related discrimination.