Introduction

Anderson v. Turning Point Eespro is a landmark case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on May 15, 2019. The case revolves around the appellant, Ms. Anderson, a black female project worker who alleged race discrimination, racial harassment, and sex discrimination during her tenure at Turning Point Eespro, a social care charity. While her claims of race discrimination and racial harassment were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal (ET) in November 2009, her sex discrimination claim was upheld, leading to protracted remedy proceedings that were significantly delayed due to Ms. Anderson's mental health issues. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, focusing on the procedural handling of cases involving parties with mental ill-health and the implications for reasonable adjustments in employment tribunals.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal initially dismissed Ms. Anderson's race-related claims but upheld her sex discrimination claim, directing a remedy hearing. The remedy proceedings faced extraordinary delays primarily due to Ms. Anderson's mental health breakdown and periods of self-representation. The ET prolonged the hearing process, eventually awarding Ms. Anderson £36,130.93 in compensation, a figure she contested as insufficient. Her appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) were unsuccessful, leading her to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, after considering the procedural history and submissions from various interveners including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Mind, ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the ET's handling of the case, particularly its efforts to accommodate Ms. Anderson's mental health challenges by facilitating legal representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influence the court's approach to handling cases involving vulnerable parties:

• Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB): A guidance document by the Judicial College providing best practices for tribunals in handling cases involving vulnerable or disabled parties, emphasizing reasonable adjustments to ensure fairness.
• Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd UKEAT/0110/15: Suggests holding separate hearings for vulnerable witnesses in Employment Tribunals, aligning with practices in criminal proceedings to address vulnerabilities effectively.
• Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016] NICA 25: Endorsed the notion of separate hearings for vulnerable individuals in employment contexts, reinforcing the principles set in Rackham.
• J v K [2019] EWCA Civ 5: Addressed similar issues regarding tribunals' handling of parties with mental ill-health, leading to procedural guidance that was considered in the present case.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair treatment of vulnerable parties through appropriate procedural adjustments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously examined whether the ET had fulfilled its duty to make reasonable adjustments for Ms. Anderson, a disabled person suffering from mental ill-health. The court's reasoning unfolded as follows:

• The ET was commended for recognizing Ms. Anderson's disability and the potential disadvantages it posed in representing herself during the remedy hearing. The tribunal's decision to adjourn the hearing and facilitate representation via the Bar Pro Bono Unit was deemed appropriate.
• The appellant argued that the ET failed to conduct a "ground rules hearing" or to instruct an independent expert to determine necessary reasonable adjustments. However, the court found no merit in this claim, asserting that such a hearing is not mandatory in every case involving a disabled party.
• The court emphasized that the ET acted within its discretion by relying on the legal representatives to advocate for any additional accommodations based on expert advice, thereby avoiding a mechanistic approach to procedural adjustments.
• The appellant's failure to specify particular adjustments that were neglected further weakened her case, leading the court to deem her criticisms as unfounded and not presenting an arguable point of law.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that the ET had adequately addressed Ms. Anderson's needs, ensuring a fair hearing without overstepping its boundaries by taking undue control over the accommodations process.

Impact

The decision in Anderson v. Turning Point Eespro has significant implications for future employment tribunal cases, particularly those involving claimants with disabilities or mental health issues:

• Reinforces the principle that tribunals must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled parties, but these adjustments can be effectively managed through the claimant's legal representation.
• Clarifies that a "ground rules hearing" is not an absolute requirement in every case of disability, allowing tribunals flexibility to assess needs based on the specific circumstances.
• Affirms that tribunals can rely on expert advice provided by the parties' representatives rather than necessitating independent tribunals-wide expert consultations, streamlining the process.
• Highlights the judiciary's balanced approach in safeguarding fairness without imposing rigid procedural mandates, thus promoting efficiency while respecting individual needs.

This judgment serves as a guiding framework for tribunals to handle cases involving vulnerable parties with discretion and empathy, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained without unnecessary complexity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Adjustments

Reasonable adjustments refer to modifications or accommodations that employers and tribunals must make to ensure that individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions are not at a disadvantage. In the context of tribunals, this can include providing additional time, facilitating representation through legal aid, or adjusting the format of hearings to accommodate specific needs.

Ground Rules Hearing

A ground rules hearing is a preliminary meeting in legal proceedings where the tribunal sets out the procedures and any necessary adjustments to facilitate a fair hearing. This is especially important when one of the parties is vulnerable or has a disability, ensuring that the hearing process accommodates their specific needs.

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 - Rule 3 (7) and Rule 3 (10)

These rules govern the process for appealing decisions made by Employment Tribunals:

• Rule 3(7): Allows for appeals on points of law, but requires that the appeal raises an arguable legal point.
• Rule 3(10): Provides for appeals based on the correctness of the tribunal's findings, typically involving a review of the evidence and factual determinations.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Anderson v. Turning Point Eespro underscores the delicate balance tribunals must maintain between procedural rigor and empathetic accommodation of vulnerable parties. By dismissing the appellant's appeal, the court reaffirmed the Employment Tribunal's handling of Ms. Anderson's case, recognizing the effectiveness of facilitating legal representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit as a sufficient reasonable adjustment. This case sets a precedent that reasonable adjustments need not follow a one-size-fits-all model but should be tailored to the individual's circumstances, with tribunals leveraging the expertise of legal representatives to address specific needs. Consequently, future cases involving disabled or mentally ill parties can draw guidance from this judgment, ensuring that fairness and justice are upheld in a manner that is both flexible and respectful of individual challenges.