Judgement: Bryce v Coventry City Council
What happened?
Mr Bryce, who has Autism Spectrum Condition and dyslexia, applied for a Team Manager role with Coventry City Council. The Council was aware of his disabilities and implemented a number of adjustments during the recruitment process, including providing interview questions in advance and scheduling his interview as the final slot of the day.
Following his unsuccessful application, Mr Bryce brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. He argued that his disabilities caused him significant stress during interviews and affected his ability to respond to questions and provide examples under pressure.
Employment Tribunal Decision
The Employment Tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that Mr Bryce's proposed adjustment of asking only closed ("yes or no") questions was not reasonable, as this would prevent candidates from adequately demonstrating the competencies required for the role.
The Tribunal also concluded that Mr Bryce was not stressed during the interview, relying on evidence from an interviewer who considered him to be calm and confident. It found that the reason he was not appointed was his lack of managerial experience, rather than anything arising from his disabilities.
EAT Decision
The EAT upheld the Tribunal's decision on reasonable adjustments but allowed the appeal in relation to the disability discrimination claim.
In particular, the EAT found that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on assumptions about how a person displays stress. The interviewer had concluded that Mr Bryce was not stressed because he confidently explained the adjustments he required and declined a request to share his screen. The EAT held that this reasoning reflected assumptions about how a neurotypical person might behave and failed to consider whether an autistic candidate may experience or display stress differently.
The EAT also criticised the Tribunal for preferring the impressions of an interviewer with no expertise in neurodivergent conditions over Mr Bryce's own evidence regarding the impact interview situations had on him. The discrimination claim was remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This judgment is particularly interesting because, on the facts, the employer appeared to do many of the right things. Mr Bryce disclosed his disabilities, the Council discussed and implemented adjustments, and there was no indication at the time that further support was required.
So… where might the employer have fallen short?
The EAT's concern was not with the adjustments themselves, but with the assumptions that were subsequently made about Mr Bryce's behaviour. The case serves as a useful reminder that a person's outward presentation may not always reflect their internal experience. Someone who appears calm, articulate or confident may nevertheless be experiencing significant stress or anxiety.
For employers, the key lessons are:
Avoid making assumptions about how neurodivergent individuals may display stress, anxiety or discomfort.
Remember that behaviour can be interpreted differently depending on the individual's condition and circumstances.
Focus on objective, evidence-based assessment criteria rather than subjective impressions of a candidate's demeanour.
Ensure interviewers understand the difference between observing behaviour and interpreting what that behaviour means.
Consider whether additional adjustments may be required, rather than limiting consideration solely to those specifically requested by the individual.
