In the recent Employment Tribunal case of Wood v Durham County Council, an employee brought a claim against his employer for disability discrimination after he was dismissed for shoplifting and failing to inform his employer of the incident, which he claimed was due to his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and associative amnesia.
Wood v Durham County Council
Case Background
Mr Wood was employed as an Anti-Social Behaviour Officer at Durham County Council. As part of his role with the Council he had to abide by a code of conduct, both inside and outside of the workplace. In addition as part of his role he was required to have a Non Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV) Level 2 clearance.
On 24th August 2015, Mr Wood was apprehended outside a branch of Boots after stealing various items. The police were called and Mr Wood admitted to having taken the items from the store without paying for them. He was questioned by the police about his occupation but was dishonest and said that he worked in security and travelled around a lot. Mr Wood also removed his Council ID lanyard before being apprehended outside the store. The police issued him with a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) and a fine of £90.
In October 2015, Durham County Council became aware of the incident after Mr Wood’s NPPV clearance was refused. Mr Wood was questioned about the incident outside of the workplace by his employer, to which he claimed to have no knowledge of. When his employer revealed that they knew the full details of what had happened and also knew of the PND, Mr Wood admitted that he could remember the event but that he was not to blame for it. He referred to his PTSD and associative amnesia as the cause. The Council commenced disciplinary proceedings against Mr Wood and he was subsequently dismissed in May 2016.
Mr Wood brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the Council for disability discrimination on the grounds that his PTSD and associative amnesia had caused him to forget to pay for the items in Boots and, subsequently, to inform his employer of the incident. His claim was based on the following:
- Indirect discrimination;
- Discrimination arising from disability; and
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Council’s defence in relation to this claim was that, whilst they accepted that Mr Wood suffered from PTSD and that this was recognised as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, that this was not the cause of the incident in Boots. In fact, it was a manifestation of an inclination or tendency to steal, which is an excluded condition under the Equality Act 2010 not amounting to a disability.
Judgment
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the Council due to the excluded condition of a tendency to steal. They considered the actions of Mr Wood throughout the incident and afterwards, where he failed to inform the Council of what had happened. Mr Wood then lodged an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who upheld the Tribunal’s decision and again highlighted that Mr Wood had shown a tendency to steal.
How Nelsons Can Help
Weighing up whether an employee’s condition is likely to amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 can be a difficult and timely process. Our experienced Employment Law team can guide you through issues surrounding disability discrimination and advise you on risks and resolutions should a claim be issued against your business.
For further information, please call 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.