Disability discrimination claims can be complex, particularly when workplace behaviour is in the spotlight. The case of McQueen v General Optical Council [2023] EAT 36 is a useful example of disability discrimination claim under Section 15. It reminds employers that while the Equality Act offers broad protection, not every challenging behaviour will be linked to an employee’s disability.

For HR professionals and SMEs, the case provides valuable guidance on handling conduct concerns where disabilities are present — balancing support, fairness, and clear reasoning.

 

Background

The employee: Mr McQueen worked as a Registration Officer at the General Optical Council (GOC).

Disabilities: He had dyslexia, neurodiverse traits (including symptoms of Asperger’s), and hearing loss. The Equality Act 2010 recognises these conditions as disabilities.

Adjustments: The GOC had already put some reasonable adjustments in place, such as:

• Requiring instructions to be confirmed in writing if given verbally.
• Providing a recording device to help him keep track of meetings and instructions.

Concerns: Despite these adjustments, tensions arose at work. Colleagues reported incidents where Mr McQueen shouted, used aggressive gestures and refused to follow instructions.

Mr McQueen sometimes called these episodes “meltdowns”. Over time, they led to disciplinary warnings and strained working relationships.

The claim: Mr McQueen argued that these behaviours were linked to his disabilities. He said that by disciplining him, the GOC discriminated under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

 

The Legal Issue

Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 protects employees from unfavourable treatment “because of something arising in consequence of their disability.”

To succeed under Section 15, an employee must show:

• They were treated unfavourably (e.g. disciplined).
• The treatment was “because of” something (such as behaviour).
• That “something” arose in consequence of their disability.

If the employee proves this link, the employer must then show that their actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — such as protecting other staff or maintaining workplace standards.

In this case, the central question was: Did Mr McQueen’s behaviour arise in consequence of his disabilities, or did it come from other causes?

 

The Tribunal’s Decision

The Employment Tribunal accepted that Mr McQueen was disabled. However, it concluded that his behaviour in the incidents at issue did not arise because of those disabilities.

Instead, the Tribunal found that his conduct: shouting, aggressive gestures, refusal to follow instructions came from other factors, such as:

• His personality and temper
• A dislike of being told what to do
• Difficult working relationships with colleagues.

As a result, the Section 15 claim failed at the causation stage. The Tribunal accepted that the GOC had made reasonable adjustments, and therefore saw no need to consider justification.

 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision

Mr McQueen appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test and been too strict in its approach to causation.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), led by Mr Justice Kerr, acknowledged that the Tribunal’s written decision was “curiously structured” and not always easy to follow. However, the EAT confirmed that there was no error of law and the Tribunal had reached a conclusion open to it on the evidence.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The disciplinary action did not amount to disability discrimination because the conduct in question did not arise in consequence of Mr McQueen’s disabilities.

 

Key Lessons for Employers and SMEs

This case highlights several important lessons:

1. Understand Section 15 claims

The “something arising in consequence of disability” test is broad — but not unlimited. Employers aren’t liable for every instance of poor behaviour by a disabled employee, only where there’s a clear causal link.

2. Evidence is critical

Tribunals look closely at medical reports, occupational health advice, and detailed incident records. Employers should keep thorough documentation of behaviour, adjustments, and the reasons behind disciplinary decisions.

3. Adjustments matter

The GOC’s proactive steps (written instructions, recording device) demonstrated awareness and fairness. Making reasonable adjustments shows compliance and can strengthen an employer’s defence.

4. Don’t assume — investigate

Not every aspect of an employee’s behaviour is linked to their disability. Employers must look at the facts of each situation and seek medical or occupational health advice where needed.

5. Train managers.

Line managers are often the first to respond to conduct or performance issues. Training them on disability awareness, reasonable adjustments, and fair processes helps reduce risk of claims.

 

Implications for SMEs

For small and medium-sized businesses, this case is especially relevant. SMEs often lack in-house HR teams and may feel unsure how to manage disability and conduct issues. Key points to consider are:

• Early intervention helps: Address concerns promptly and constructively before situations escalate.
• Seek external expertise: Independent HR consultants can provide guidance on adjustments, legal risks, and fair processes.
• Protect your business: Mishandling disability-related conduct can lead to costly claims. Taking advice ensures decisions are robust and defensible.

 

Conclusion

McQueen v General Optical Council disability discrimination case underlines the importance of careful handling where disability and workplace behaviour intersect. The case shows that not every difficult incident will amount to discrimination — but employers must have clear evidence to show why disciplinary action was taken.

For SMEs, the message is clear: invest the time to understand disability rights, make reasonable adjustments, and document decisions thoroughly. When in doubt, seek expert support.

Accredited HRi Certified® consultants provide the reassurance that advice is rooted in professional standards, helping businesses balance employee support with operational needs.