Background
This case concerns the appeal of a university lecturer (referred to as “F”), who brought a disability discrimination claim against his former employer. F has Asperger’s Syndrome, a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010, and sought an order for anonymity under Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules due to fears that public disclosure of his condition would harm his career and personal life.
F had concealed his diagnosis from family, friends, and previous employers throughout his working life. He argued that if his condition became known through tribunal proceedings, it could severely affect his ability to secure future roles in education, especially given the stigma still associated with autism.
An Employment Tribunal (ET) refused his application for anonymity, setting a high evidential threshold and focusing on the absence of medical evidence and the fact F had secured new employment after leaving the respondent.
Key Issues
1. Incorrect Legal Test Applied:
The ET required F to produce objective evidence of likely professional harm, including medical or psychological assessments. The EAT held this was an error. The correct test, as set out in Millicom Services UK Ltd v Clifford, is whether there is a reasonable basis for the belief that lack of anonymity would prejudice the administration of justice—not whether fears are objectively proven.
2. Failure to Consider Subjective Concerns Adequately:
The ET gave insufficient weight to F’s subjective and genuinely held concerns. It failed to explore whether his new employer was aware of his disability, a crucial point when judging the relevance of his current employment.
3. Evidence of Risk:
The EAT considered academic research submitted by F—including a study showing that applicants with autism were less likely to be invited for interview than non-autistic peers. While some evidence was US-based, the EAT said this did not diminish its relevance to the UK context. The recently published Buckland Review of Autism in Employment supported the broader picture of disadvantage.
4. Open Justice Principle:
The EAT weighed the importance of open justice but found that anonymising both parties would not significantly undermine public understanding of the case. Given the sensitive nature of the claimant’s disability and the likelihood of harm if he were identified, the need to protect his privacy outweighed the need for naming the parties.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision
The EAT upheld the appeal, finding that the ET had applied the wrong test and had set the bar too high. Based on the material available, the EAT concluded there was only one lawful outcome: that both parties should be anonymised. It substituted its own decision in place of the ET’s.
Significance
This case confirms that tribunals must adopt a fair and sensitive approach to anonymity requests, especially where the individual has a hidden disability like autism. The threshold for proving potential harm need not be high, and subjective fears—if reasonably held—can justify anonymity.
For trade union reps supporting neurodivergent members, the ruling underscores the importance of seeking privacy protections early in litigation and reinforcing the value of experiential and academic evidence over inaccessible medical proof.
Outcome
The EAT overturned the ET’s decision and granted anonymity to both parties. The proceedings will continue under anonymised titles to protect the claimant from potential professional and personal harm.
