Can loss of temper arise from a disability?

Discrimination arising from disability occurs where an individual is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability.  However, an employer will have a defence to this type of claim if it can show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Clearly aggressive behaviour in the workplace cannot go unaddressed but there have been cases which demonstrate that this could be linked to a disability.  In such instances, employers will need to be mindful of discrimination arising from disability claims as well as their general duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees which will likely include, obtaining medical evidence and adapting their disciplinary processes to alleviate any substantial disadvantage faced by the disabled employee.

Previous cases addressing this point have included:

• Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a paraplegic employee discovered that his employer had moved a course venue to a basement that he could not access and lost his temper, verbally abusing a colleague.  The EAT felt that there was a sufficient link between his loss of temper and his disability.  It said that had he not been disabled, he would not have been angered by the decision.
• Sadeghi v TJX UK, where an employee at TK Maxx, who suffered with anxiety and depression, was involved in an altercation with an aggressive customer.  The employee, grabbed the customer’s wrist, covered their phone to prevent them recording and tried to pull the phone away which resulted in the customer being pulled forward.  The claimant’s claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded.
• McQueen v General Optical Council, which involved an employee with dyslexia, symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome, neurodiversity and left sided hearing loss who got into conflicts with colleagues.  On the medical information in this case, the EAT found that whilst the claimant’s disabilities could cause him to have ‘meltdowns’, it did not feel the claimant’s actions during these times were connected to his disability.  It felt instead that he had a short temper, resented being told what to do and had lost his temper for unrelated reasons.
• Wills v Marks & Spencer plc, an employee who suffered with a severe depressive illness had an altercation with a customer.  The Tribunal accepted that, on balance, his loss of temper arose as a consequence of his depression.  There was a clear legitimate aim in protecting staff and customers but, the employer had not obtained medical evidence and the tribunal felt that, without exploring the medical position, the employer could not establish that it was reasonably necessary to dismiss the claimant, as such, the dismissal was disproportionate.

This has been addressed again in the recent tribunal case of Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure Limited.  In this case, a hotel employee was heard shouting profanities at a colleague during an argument in a hotel corridor.  Other staff and customers had heard this. The company’s policy was clear that aggressive behaviour, including the use of bad language, would be treated as gross misconduct and she was ultimately dismissed.  She brought claims including claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The claimant suffered with anxiety and depression and also Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) of which her employer was aware.  The Tribunal found that she was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of these conditions and that the medical evidence available showed that her inability to control her anger arose in consequence of her disability.

It found that she was discriminated against as a result of something arising in consequence of her disability, but that the employer was able to objectively justify its actions in this case.  The employer relied upon four legitimate aims when dismissing her, namely that it had to (1) conduct a fair and reasonable disciplinary process (2) preserve its reputation and high standard of service towards its guests and customers (3) not tolerate unprofessional conduct by staff and (4) demonstrate to other staff that this conduct was unacceptable.  The Tribunal did not accept the latter as there was no evidence of other staff being told the outcome but it upheld the others. In terms of acting proportionately to achieve these aims, the Tribunal found that during her disciplinary hearing the claimant had sought to minimise the seriousness of the incident; did not accept that guests or customers had heard her shouting (which the tribunal found was unrealistic) or that there were complaints; had sought to point the blame on the other colleague and appeared more interested in whether the other colleague was also being disciplined than in the effect on the employer’s guests and reputation.  As such, whilst there were less discriminatory measures that could have been considered (such as holding a meeting between the claimant and the other colleague and getting assurances about their future conduct) the employer could not be satisfied that similar incidents would not happen again and as such it’s actions in dismissing were proportionate.

However, the Tribunal did uphold the claimant’s complaint relating to reasonable adjustments.  It felt it would have been reasonable in the circumstances, despite the claimant not having raised any issue with her health during the disciplinary, for the employer to have sought medical evidence. It felt there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.  She was awarded a sum for loss (taking into account the fact that she may have been dismissed even if medical evidence had been obtained given her attitude and behaviour during the disciplinary process) and awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings.

The cases show how fact specific these types of cases are and are a reminder to employers that it is important to consider the impact of a disabled employee’s health on their actions, obtain medical evidence and make reasonable adjustments.  It can be a very difficult one for employers to manage, particularly as the employee themselves may not have suggested that their health contributed to their aggressive behaviour at the time.