The first stage of the GLS's trainee recruitment process is a multiple choice, situational judgement test (SJT).
Ms Brookes, a law graduate with Asperger's syndrome, applied to the GLS for a training contract in 2015 and requested adjustments to be made for her Asperger's syndrome, in particular by allowing her to answer the SJT in short written answer form. The GLS refused this request, but said that time allowances were available and a guaranteed interview scheme applied for any applicants who passed the first stage of the application process (the SJT and two further tests).
Ms Brookes expressed concern about the potential discriminatory impact, but nevertheless took the test and submitted it online. Ms Brookes did not pass the SJT - achieving 12 out of 22, the pass mark being 14. On this basis, her application went no further.
Ms Brookes presented claims in the ET for indirect disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disability and a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The ET upheld Ms Brookes' claims and ordered the GLS to pay her £860 compensation and recommended that the GLS apologise to Ms Brookes and review its procedures in relation to people with a disability applying for employment, with a view to greater flexibility.
GLS appealed.
The EAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ET's reasoning for reaching its decision: "the tribunal was presented with what appeared to be a capable young woman who, with the benefit of adjustments, had obtained a law degree and had come close to reaching the required mark of 14 in the SJT, but had not quite managed it. The tribunal was right to ask itself why and was entitled to find that a likely explanation could be found in the fact that she had Asperger's and the additional difficulty that would place her under due to the multiple choice format of the SJT."
Although the SJT pursued the legitimate aim of testing a fundamental competency required of all applicants, the means of achieving that aim were not proportionate.
We recommend employers review their recruitment procedures to ensure they are not discriminatory and carefully consider any requests for adjustments.