Mr Simon Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 18 May 2023 |
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: PIPE v COVENTRY UNIVERSITY
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 73
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 73
Case No: EA-2022-000234-BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 18 May 2023
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR SIMON PIPE
Appellant
- and –
COVENTRY UNIVERSITY HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joshua Jackson (instructed by Cole Khan, Solicitors) for the Appellant
Anthony Johnston (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 1-2 March 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties'
representatives by email and release to The National Archives.
The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 18 May 2023 at 10:30am
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: PIPE v COVENTRY UNIVERSITY
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 73
SUMMARY
Disability discrimination – sections 15, 19, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
Age discrimination – section 19 Equality Act 2010
Under the respondent’s Framework for progression, the claimant made three applications for
promotion to a higher grade but was unsuccessful. He also argued that he was deterred from applying
again in 2020. It was the claimant’s case that the Framework was a provision, criterion or practice
that placed him at a disadvantage due to his disability (he suffered from ADHD and a sleeping
disorder), such as to give rise to indirect disability discrimination and an obligation to make
reasonable adjustments, and that he suffered unfavourable treatment due to something arising in
consequence of his disability in that he was unable to meet the Framework standards for progression
in terms of attaining a PhD. The claimant also argued that the Framework gave rise to age
discrimination. The ET rejected the claimant’s claims. The claimant appealed.
Held: dismissing the appeal save in relation to the ET’s failure to address the indirect discrimination
claims relating to events in 2020.
The ET had erred in (i) finding that the respondent could not reasonably have known of the
disadvantage suffered by the claimant by the time of his 2018 application; (ii) in its approach to the
identification of the PCP; and (iii) in its assessment of disadvantage in respect of the claim of indirect
age discrimination. These errors were, however, rendered academic by the ET’s further conclusions,
in the alternative, on disadvantage in respect of the disability discrimination claims; reasonable
adjustments; causation; and objective justification. The appeal would accordingly be dismissed in
respect of the ET’s judgment insofar as that related to the claimant’s applications for progression in
2017, 2018, and 2019.
The ET had failed to address the further claims of indirect disability and age discrimination made in
relation to events in 2020. This had been part of the claimant’s pleaded case and gave rise to an error
of law. The appeal would be allowed in this limited respect and these claims remitted for
determination.
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: PIPE v COVENTRY UNIVERSITY
© EAT 2023 Page 3 [2023] EAT 73
The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE, President:
Introduction
1. This appeal raises various questions under the Equality Act 2010 (“the EqA”), both as to the
approach to be taken to claims of disability discrimination – by reason of a failure to make reasonable
adjustments (sections 20 and 21 EqA), because of something arising in consequence of disability
(section 15 EqA), and indirect disability discrimination (section 19 EqA) – and indirect age
discrimination (again, section 19 EqA).
2. I refer to the parties as the claimant and respondent, as below. This is the full hearing of the
claimant’s appeal against the judgment of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham
(Employment Judge Perry, sitting with lay members Mr Stanley and Mr Liburd, over eight days in
December 2021, with a further two days in chambers for deliberations; “the ET”), sent to the parties
on 1 March 2022. By that judgment, the ET dismissed the claimant’s claims of disability
discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments and because of something
arising in consequence of disability, and further dismissed his claims of indirect discrimination
because of age or disability. The claimant appeals against the ET’s decision on each claim . The
appeal is resisted by the respondent. Representation before the ET was as it has been on this appeal.
The Facts
3. The claimant initially started work for the respondent in late 2012/early 2013, as an hourly
paid lecturer in journalism and media within the school of media and performing arts, which formed
part of the faculty of arts and humanities. The respondent university comprises four faculties and
various research centres; the faculty of arts and humanities is the smallest, with 4,500 of the
respondent’s 25-30,000 students. The claimant had been a newspaper/agency journalist until he
joined the BBC in 1994, where he largely remained until late 2011, progressing to the position of
senior broadcast journalist. Having obtained an MA in online journalism, from early 2013 the
claimant started working in academia and, in November 2013, he took up a full-time position with
To continue reading
Request your trial