The claimant, a university lecturer, had made three applications for promotion to a higher grade under the framework but was unsuccessful. He also argued he was deterred from applying again in 2020 so he resigned and issued a claim that, broadly, the Framework placed him at a disadvantage as, among other things, he was unable to attain a PhD which was a required standard for progression. The ET rejected the claimant’s claims partly because the respondent could not have known of the claimant's disability at the time - he was only diagnosed with ADHD in 2018.

In this judgment, The President finds the ET had erred in several aspects of the claim, including knowledge of the disability, but the errors were outweighed by further conclusions so the appeals related to his applications in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were dismissed. However the ET had failed to address the further claims relating to 2020, which had been part of the claimant’s pleaded case so the appeal was allowed in this limited respect and remitted to the ET.