The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the dismissal of a teacher for showing an 18-rated film to a class of vulnerable 15- and 16-year-olds amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from his disability and was not justified.
In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.
In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT/0318/15, the EAT affirmed that a finding of unfavourable treatment because of "something arising in consequence of" a claimant's disability can be made where there is no direct connection between the disability and the conduct leading to that treatment.