The Claimant was a locum who suffered sporadic periods of absence due to her disability (endometriosis). Her contract was terminated after being considered alongside 2 other locums, one of whom had been there for several years and the other whose service was held to be more reliable. The ET upheld the Claimant's claim of direct discrimination on the basis that the Respondent had not proved that the reason for the unfavourable treatment was a non-discriminatory reason not connected to disability. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part. The ET held that the Respondent terminated the engagement of the Claimant because of disability related absences. The ET erred in law in holding that this constituted direct disability discrimination; but did not err in law in holding that the Respondent had failed to establish that the treatment, which was because of absence arising in consequence of disability, was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.