'Meltdowns' at work: temper or disability?

Employers faced with an employee who has angry ‘meltdowns’ at work may wonder what to do if the employee argues that their behaviour is because of something arising from a disability.

The recent case of McQueen v the General Optical Council sheds some light on this tricky question. The Employment Appeal Tribunal explained that in a discrimination ‘arising from’ disability claim, there must be a sufficient causal connection between any unfavourable treatment and the ‘something’ which arises in consequence of the disability.

In this Briefing, we explore how to structure an assessment of whether the unfavourable treatment was ‘because of’ something arising in consequence of an employee’s disability – or ‘because of’ something else, such as just having a bad temper.

Background

There are four main strands of disability discrimination:

• Direct discrimination.
• Indirect discrimination.
• Discrimination ‘arising from’ disability.
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Discrimination “arising from disability" occurs where:

• a person is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability; and
• that treatment is not justified.

The ‘something arising in consequence’ of disability can be wide – it could include, for example, an inability to walk unaided, having to follow a particular diet or struggling to use certain equipment.

Facts

Mr McQueen was employed as a registration officer by the General Optical Council.

It was accepted that Mr McQueen has dyslexia, some symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome, some hearing loss and neurodiversity, which caused him some difficulties with his interactions in the workplace.

Medical evidence indicated that, in situations of stress or anxiety, he would raise his voice and use aggressive mannerisms, with inappropriate speech and tone.

There were two confrontations between Mr McQueen and a senior colleague which led to Mr McQueen going into “meltdown” whereby he was rude, disrespectful, and aggressive, which left a senior colleague in tears on one of the occasions. There were various other examples of incidents in which Mr McQueen caused conflict and was disruptive. These incidents led to warnings, disciplinary measures, and protracted grievance processes.

Mr McQueen claimed that he had been subjected to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of his disability.

Decision

An Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed Mr McQueen’s claims.

The ET noted his disabilities and made various findings about their extent and effect. But it found that, when Mr McQueen went into "meltdown" or became loud and angry, the disabilities played no part in his conduct. The ET found that he had behaved as he did because he had a short temper and resented being told what to do.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the ET’s decision, notwithstanding that it found it was structured and drafted in an unorthodox manner; there was no error of law or principle in its findings.

The EAT provided guidance on how the ET could better structure its decision by asking itself the following questions:

• what are the disabilities?
• what are their effects?
• what unfavourable treatment is alleged and proved?
• was that unfavourable treatment ‘because of’ an effect or effects of the disabilities?

Alternatively, the ET could have reversed the order of the questions and asked instead:

• what unfavourable treatment is alleged and proved?
• what was the reason for that unfavourable treatment?
• what were the effects of the disabilities?
• was the reason for the unfavourable treatment an effect or effects of the disabilities?

Comment

The causation test in claims for discrimination arising from disability is generally quite loose, but there still must be a connection between the “something” leading to the unfavourable treatment and the disability of the employee.

The examples in this case show the connection will usually be fact-specific and dependent on medical evidence. Mr McQueen may have displayed symptoms characteristic of his disabilities, but it is not conclusive that such behaviour arose in consequence of his disabilities.

Where an employee suffers from several disabilities, all with varying symptoms, it may be difficult to predict whether a particular kind of behaviour is something which arises in consequence of one or more of the disabilities. By applying the helpful structured list of questions set out by the EAT’s ruling, it becomes easier to assess whether a causal connection does in fact exist.

Although, of course, employers should always be thorough and diligent when applying a disciplinary process, this case highlights the extra considerations to bear in mind where an employee has a disability. But following the structure set out by the EAT above should help employers to understand when treatment may fall within the restrictions on discrimination arising from disability.

And remember that even if treatment is because of something arising from a disability, it could still be lawful if it is justified.

Read the McQueen judgment here.

Contributors: Catherine Roylance, Sarah Maddock and Calum Ross

For further news and updates on employment law developments as they happen, please follow our specialist Employment Law Twitter Feed @TLT_Employment and subscribe to our Employment Law Focus podcast – the latest episode, Thinking differently: neurodiversity and work is available here and focuses on neurodiversity and the different conditions that affect how people think, process and interpret information.