The Claimant's employment ended after the expiry of his fixed tern contract. The ET unanimously held that the Respondent directly discriminated against the Claimant contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010; that the Respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments both in respect of section 20(3) and (5) and section 21 of the Equality Act 2010; and that the Claimant’s claims were not time barred. The Respondent appealed against the decision of the ET on three grounds. First, the ET erred in law in viewing the Claimant’s dismissal as direct discrimination in terms of section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. Second, the ET erred in law in its view that the Respondent’s provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) of deeming more than seven days absence as unsatisfactory attendance put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. In that respect it came to a decision for which there was no relevant evidence or finding in fact and / or impermissibly shifted the onus to the Respondent to present evidence. Third, the ET erred in viewing the Respondent’s actions as a single course of conduct with a complaint presented within the time limit and / or failed to provide sufficient reasons for exercising its discretion to extend time.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred (i) by failing to properly direct itself to the questions of whether (a) a non-disabled comparator would have been similarly treated to him; and (b) the less favourable treatment was ‘because of’ their disability; (ii) in holding that the PCP in issue put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage; (iii) in deciding that the Respondent’s actions constituted a single course of conduct with a complaint having been presented within the applicable time limit; and (iv) by failing to provide sufficient reasons for exercising its discretion to extend time.