The Claimant suffered from stress, anxiety and depression to such an extent that it constituted a mental health impairment. He was dismissed after an episode of aggressive behaviour towards colleagues and a social media post containing derogatory comments. He brought a number of complaints to the ET including complaints of unfair dismissal and discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability. The ET dismissed all his claims and he appealed on the basis that the claimant’s actions were something arising in consequence of disability. The Claimant asserted that he had a “meltdown” or, as it was put in the claimant’s skeleton argument, he was not “compos mentis” when the events occurred. He asserted that what he said, and the comments he posted, must necessarily have been something that arose in consequence of his disability. He further asserted that because a referral to Occupational Health did not refer to the fact that the Claimant said that he “felt like killing himself”, that meant that the report was fundamentally undermined and could not be relied upon as evidence to assist in determining the question of whether what the Claimant did was something that arose in consequence of disability.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The determination of whether the Claimant’s actions were something arising in consequence of disability was a matter of fact for the ET. The Claimant had the primary responsibility to provide evidence upon which the ET could reach a conclusion on that issues. The Claimant did not provide medical evidence himself. The ET was entitled to consider the only medical evidence, the report obtained from Occupational Health by the Respondent.