The claimant was disabled by reason of depression. He applied for a post under the respondent's ‘Guaranteed Interview Scheme’ (GIS) which entitled him to a guaranteed interview if he met the minimum criteria for the post. The respondent believed the claimant had dishonestly claimed that he was disabled to gain the interview and so started disciplinary proceedings. Claims in the ET for disability discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

HHJ Tariq Sadiq allowed the appeal as the ET had erred in (i) finding that the disciplinary investigation was not something arising from the claimant’s disability and (ii) in finding that the claimant had not done a protected act for the purposes of the victimisation claim. Instead, the EAT substituted a finding that the disciplinary investigation was something arising from the claimant’s disability and remitted the matter back to the same ET to consider the justification defence. The matter of whether the claimant had done a protected act was also remitted.