Philip McQueen v General Optical Council [2023] EAT 36
Listen to audio version by clicking here.
Mr McQueen, who is dyslexic, neurodivergent (including some symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome), and has hearing loss, claimed that the disciplinary actions and negative treatment he faced at work were due to behaviours arising from his disabilities. He argued that these “meltdowns” were misunderstood responses to workplace stress linked to his conditions, and that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had applied too strict a legal test under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The General Optical Council accepted that he was disabled and had made some adjustments, but argued that his conduct — including loud, disruptive behaviour and insubordination — was not caused by his disabilities but by his temperament. The ET agreed, concluding that his conduct arose from a short temper and resentment of authority, not from his conditions.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. While it was critical of the ET’s drafting, it found no error of law. The case highlights that, to succeed under section 15, claimants must demonstrate a clear causal link between the disability and the behaviour that led to the unfavourable treatment. The disability must play more than a trivial role in causing that behaviour.
This decision may prompt readers to question whether the General Optical Council did enough to understand the connection between Mr McQueen’s behaviour and his impairments—a measure that would reasonably be regarded as good practice for an employer of comparable size.
This is a summary of the judgement, which can be found:
HERE
It is provided for informational purposes only. Anyone intending to rely on this decision is strongly advised to seek appropriate legal advice.
Sean Kennedy 1 July 2025
