The claimant applied for, was interviewed for, and was not appointed to a role with the respondent. It was not disputed that he has Asperger’s Syndrome and dyslexia. He had asked for adjustments to the recruitment process, in particular because he required extra time to provide examples of how he met the requirements of the role. He was provided with the questions some time in advance of the interview. He claimed that further adjustments should have been made, including an adjustment to ask ‘closed’ rather than ‘open’ questions. After he failed to get the job, he brought claims concerning reasonable adjustments and discrimination because of something arising from disability; one of the ‘somethings’ relied on was that the claimant suffered stress in new situations such as meeting new people in job interviews. The ET found that an adjustment of asking ‘closed’ rather than ‘open’ questions was not connected to the substantial disadvantage caused by the PCP and that the version of the adjustment contended for by the claimant (asking ‘yes or no’ questions) was not reasonable. The ET also found the claimant had not in fact been stressed in the interview and so had not been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability.

HHJ Joffe found the ET had not erred in concluding that reasonable adjustment had been made in the questions asked as they satisfied the National Autistic Society guidance. However the ET had erred in accepting one of the interviewers’ assessments of whether the claimant was stressed, as it was based in part based on the interviewer’s observations about what most people would feel and not what someone with the claimant's disabilities might feel.