The Claimant was and is disabled within the meaning of s6 of the EqA. Specifically, he has Asperger’s Syndrome, an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. There were problems between him and two colleagues, with all three complaining of bullying and harassment. The situation was investigated internally by the Respondent. The Claimant brought his claims to the ET but all grounds were dismissed, including one conclusion which said:

'Disparaging comments about the Claimant could have the effect of violating his dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant (the “proscribed effect”) but only to the extent that the Claimant was aware of them. We found that the Claimant became aware of what his colleagues were saying about him only during the B&H [bullying and harassment] investigation. However, for the reasons set out at paragraphs 182- 190 below, we did not believe that the unwanted conduct had the proscribed effect.'

The Claimant appealed against this finding and three others.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. They concluded that the first ground of appeal, predicated upon an alleged failure by the ET in determining the question of harassment, to have regard to conduct of which the claimant was not aware, did not identify an error in law. The second ground of appeal, which was directed to the question of whether or not the ET fell into error in determining the question of reasonableness in terms of s.26 having regard to the context in which the unwanted conduct came to light, namely the bullying and harassment investigation was dismissed, the EAT saying that the unwanted conduct and the context of that conduct were relevant considerations in the carrying out of the exercise mandated by s.26(4) of EqA and the ET did not misdirect itself in this regard. The other 2 grounds were also dismissed.