Case Summary: Mr. Steven Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2024] EAT 175

By Jo Seery Professional Support Lawyer

& Matthew Rowlinson Employment Rights Lawyer

Background

Mr. Steven Connor, a civilian employee of South Yorkshire Police since 2002, was dismissed in 2020 for accessing pornography on workplace computer equipment. He argued that his actions were a consequence of a disability (depression) and that his dismissal constituted discrimination under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. 

The respondent conceded physical disabilities and accepted depression as an impairment from the date of Connor’s suspension in February 2019 but argued that it did not constitute a long-term disability before that date. Connor's appeal raised issues of disability discrimination in respect of a recurring disability and procedural irregularities during the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing. 

Key Issues on Appeal: 

Procedural Irregularity 
Connor alleged that the ET denied him and his wife (a witness) the opportunity to re-examine evidence. He also claimed that the ET misunderstood key evidence, including his use of the term "stigma." 

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Findings: 

• No denial of re-examination occurred. The notes from the ET hearing recorded that the judge invited clarification, which Connor utilised. While his wife was not explicitly invited to re-examine, the EAT ruled this did not render the hearing unfair as the Claimant was aware of the right. 

• The ET was entitled to interpret Connor’s reference to "stigma" as relating to depression and not solely to the conduct at issue on the evidence.

Disability Discrimination 

Connor argued that his depression met the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 prior to his suspension in February 2019. He claimed the ET erred by failing to recognise its impact on day-to-day activities and by requiring excessive proof of causation between his condition and the misconduct. 

EAT Findings

• The ET correctly considered whether the mental impairment had a substantial, long-term effect on daily activities in the past and whether they had recurred. The absence of GP consultations from 2011–2019 and limited workplace evidence of mental health impact undermined Connor’s case. 

• The ET overly discounted medical evidence linking stress to Connor's behaviour. While this approach was criticised, the EAT upheld the overall finding due to the lack of proven disability before 2019. 

Justification for Dismissal
The ET found that dismissal was proportionate to the legitimate aims of maintaining workplace standards and public confidence. The EAT did not address this as a ground of appeal. 

Conclusion

The EAT dismissed the appeal, affirming that Connor did not establish he was disabled under the Equality Act before February 2019. While procedural aspects and causation analysis were questioned, these did not affect the ultimate outcome. 

Significance for Union Members and Representatives 

The case reinforces the importance of establishing, in a case of a recurring disability, such as depression: 

• Evidence of the long-term and substantial effect of a persons disability on day-to-day activities both in the past and at the time. 

• It does not matter if the most recent effects of the impairment on day to day activities that are different from past effects 

• Employers’ obligations to carefully evaluate potential disability links to conduct before disciplinary action. 

Union representatives should discuss with disabled members the effects of their disability both on their normal day to day activities and the ability to do their job as compared with workers who do not have a disability and keep a clear record.