The Claimant was a cabin crew member and had entered into a fixed term contract with the Respondent who supplied cabin crew to airlines. She suffered from bipolar disorder and a heart condition. Cabin crew members were required to have a fit to fly certificate (FTFC) and she underwent 3 examinations, 2 of them conducted by Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs) which were independent of the Respondent, and the other was conducted by an alternative AME arranged by the Claimant herself. This alternative AME provided her with a FTFC; the other two felt unqualified to to assess the Claimant and said she should be referred for a psychiatric examination. The Claimant asserted that one of the two AMEs made inappropriate comments about her bipolar condition and she brought complaints that she had been subject to direct disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability and harassment by the two AMEs. The first question for the ET was whether the two AMEs were agents, which would mean the Respondent was vicariously liable. The ET found that there was no agency involved which would render the Respondent liable for any discriminatory acts of the two AMEs. Her disability discrimination claim also failed. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred in law in considering whether doctors who undertook fitness to fly examinations acted as agents of the employer for the purpose of section 109 EQA. The reasoning in respect of the substantive claims of disability discrimination was incomplete and insufficient. The ET did not err in law in its consideration of whether the complaint was submitted within time. The ET provided insufficient reasoning in respect of specific complaints of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability.