Dismissal of diabetic employee for viewing pornographic images was unfair

In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson [EATS/0038/09], Mr Dickson, a diabetic, was employed at the community wing of a school. Visitors to the community wing saw Mr Dickson using the school’s computer to view pornographic images. The Council took disciplinary action against Mr Dickson.

Unfair Dismissal

At the disciplinary hearing, Mr Dickson explained that his behaviour was a result of his diabetic condition. He had suffered from a hypoglycaemic episode during the incident because he could not remember it. The Council rejected his explanation and dismissed him.

The EAT held that the tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Dickson’s dismissal was unfair.
The Council had failed to make a genuine attempt to investigate or understand Mr Dickson’s explanation for his behaviour. Although it was understandable that the Council may have been sceptical about the explanation – it had rejected the explanation without any proper grounds for doing so.

A note from the Council’s doctor stated that Mr Dickson’s explanation could be a reason for his behaviour. The note should have alerted the Council that the explanation deserved serious consideration.

Disability Discrimination

The EAT held although Mr Dickson’s explanation which the Council rejected was based or related to his disability – the Council had not unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability.

Also see Dismissal of employee for distributing pornography did not breach their right to freedom of expression.