The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments in Recruitment
A Tribunal was entitled to find that an employer should have corresponded by phone with an applicant who was struggling to submit an online application due to his disability.
Background
In the case of AECOM Ltd v Mallon, Mr Mallon applied for a consultant role at AECOM. The recruitment process required candidates to create a login in order to complete an online application form. Mr Mallon, who has dyspraxia, emailed AECOM attaching his CV and some general information about dyspraxia. He asked if, because of his disability, he could make an oral application rather than an online one.
The HR Manager entered into email correspondence with Mr Mallon. As part of the correspondence, Mr Mallon was asked what aspect of the online form he was struggling with. Mr Mallon did not answer this question and the HR Manager told him he would need to complete the online form but that he could obtain assistance in submitting the form if required.
Mr Mallon was unsuccessful in his job application and brought an Employment Tribunal claim. He argued that AECOM had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability. In response, AECOM argued that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not engaged because Mr Mallon had failed to explain his specific difficulties, despite being asked a number of times.
The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Mallon's claim, finding that AECOM had constructive knowledge of the effects of Mr Mallon's disability, despite his failure to provide a full account. AECOM appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on four grounds of appeal.
Appeal
One of AECOM's appeal grounds was that it did not have constructive knowledge of the effects of Mr Mallon's disability. The EAT rejected this argument. The Tribunal had found that AECOM knew about Mr Mallon's disability, and that he had difficulty completing the online application form. AECOM ought to have telephoned Mr Mallon when he failed to respond to the HR manager's email questions. Given Mr Mallon's disability, it was not reasonable to expect him to explain the issue in written communication. The EAT found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings on this ground of appeal. However, the EAT upheld one of AECOM's other grounds of appeal and remitted the claim to the Tribunal for reconsideration of whether Mr Mallon was a genuine applicant for the advertised role.
Learning Points
The fact that the claim has been remitted does not negate the practical learning points emerging from the EAT's findings in respect of how AECOM corresponded with Mr Mallon. The case provides a useful reminder of the circumstances under which it can be appropriate for employers to adapt recruitment procedures as part of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.