Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Reasonable adjustmentsCase lawDisability discriminationDisabilityIndirect discrimination

Recruitment: psychometric test was discriminatory, holds EAT

by Personnel Today 8 May 2017
by Personnel Today 8 May 2017

Recruiters will have to be more careful about adjustments to the format of recruitment assessments for disabled job applicants, following an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision that an applicant with Asperger’s syndrome was unfairly disadvantaged by an online multiple-choice psychometric test.

Recruitment and disability

How to comply with duty to make reasonable adjustments during recruitment process

Disability good practice guide: Recruitment screening and testing

Podcast: Recruitment and disability discrimination

The claim was brought by an aspiring lawyer, Ms Brookes, who has Asperger’s syndrome.

She applied for a job as a trainee solicitor with the Government Legal Service (GLS).

Each year, the GLS receives thousands of applications for a small number of trainee solicitor posts.

The “fiendishly competitive” recruitment process starts with an online “situational judgment test” (SJT), which uses multiple-choice questions to test candidates’ ability to make effective decisions.

Ms Brookes asked the GLS if she could submit her answers in a short narrative form because of her condition. However, she was told that an alternative test format was not available.

Ms Brookes completed the SJT in its multiple-choice format, but she scored 12 out of 22. The pass mark to proceed to the next stage of the recruitment process was 14.

Unusually, her employment tribunal case included a claim for indirect disability discrimination. The employment tribunal accepted that the multiple-choice format put her at a particular because of her condition.

Her condition meant that she “lacked social imagination and would have difficulties in imaginative and counter-factual reasoning in hypothetical scenarios”.

Indirect disability discrimination: EAT’s view

“The tribunal was presented with what appeared to be a capable young woman who, with the benefit of adjustments, had obtained a law degree and had come close to reaching the required mark of 14 in the SJT, but had not quite managed it.

“The tribunal was right to ask itself why, and was entitled to find that a likely explanation could be found in the fact that she had Asperger’s, and the additional difficulty that would place her under due to the multiple choice format of the SJT.”

The tribunal accepted that the assessment had the legitimate aim of testing a fundamental competency.

However, the tribunal concluded that the means of achieving the aim were not proportionate because an alternative assessment method, suggested by Ms Brookes, was available.

The GLS appealed against the tribunal decision, with EAT agreeing wholeheartedly with the first-instance tribunal’s finding of indirect disability discrimination.

The appeal tribunal held that the test placed Ms Brookes at a particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled candidates who do not have Asperger’s syndrome.

The EAT accepted that her condition had affected her ability to complete the multiple-choice assessment, and that the GLS should have adapted the test for her.

The EAT also agreed with the employment tribunal that the GLS had committed discrimination arising from disability and failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Stephen Simpson, principal employment law editor at XpertHR, commented on the unusual nature of the claim: “Indirect disability discrimination claims are exceptionally rare. These days, most claimants will allege discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Both of these are generally seen as easier to win.

“The fact that the claimant won under all three headings highlights the need for recruiters to be flexible in their assessment methods for disabled applicants. In some cases, the format of the assessment may need to be altered.”

The tribunal made a recommendation that the GLS issue a written apology to her and review its recruitment procedures for disabled job applicants, with a view to introducing greater flexibility in its psychometric testing.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Ms Brookes was also awarded £860 in compensation.

More on the EAT decision in Government Legal Service v Brookes, including an analysis of its implications for employers, is available on XpertHR.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Six ways every employer should be using video on-demand webinar
next post
Neil Morrison leaves Penguin Random House for Severn Trent

2 comments

Terri Brookes 9 May 2017 - 7:40 am

People seem to be under the impression I was at Sussex Uni when this case started. However, I graduated 2 years prior in 2012.

I was in the first year of my LPC at London metropolitan University (LMU) and when this case cam to an end I had just started my LLM in Legal Practice at LMU. 

Thanks to the Law staff and the LPC team (their teachings and support) at LMU I am now a distinction student.

I just wanted to highlight this in your article for purposes of clarity and truth.

Thank you.

Tom Blake 12 May 2017 - 2:38 pm

Hi Terri,

I’m just curious if you are ok with this article describing you as ‘suffering’ with Asperger’s. This seems a rather outdated Medical model use of words to me.

glad you got a good outcome,

best wishes

Tom

Comments are closed.

You may also like

How neuroscience can unlock employee recognition

22 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Workers ‘wait and see’ as companies struggle to...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

So what does the election of a new...

9 May 2025

Rumours during recruitment: how should HR respond?

9 May 2025

Teacher apprenticeship route to be tied to school...

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+