England: Autistic judicial candidate fails in employment claim

The JAC selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.

Jonathan Rackham claimed the JAC did not make reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act due to his autism spectrum disorder and Asperger’s syndrome.

The judgment, released this week, saw Employment Judge Postle determine that Mr Rackham’s claims were not well-founded. The JAC acknowledged that their online application forms and multiple-choice qualifying tests may place Mr Rackham at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled candidates. However, they contended that the steps taken were a fair means of accomplishing a legitimate objective — a standpoint the tribunal supported.

Judge Postle stated: “Clearly, courts and tribunals deal with complex and abstract cases with time constraints. The whole purpose of the selection process is to test candidates’ ability and it clearly would not be appropriate to adjust the process to such an extent that it undermines the process itself to select those who can perform in the role.”

Mr Rackham suggested that adjustments, such as simplifying questions on the application form, should have been made by the commission. The judge, however, considered these questions “no more complex than the legal questions the tribunal would have to answer at a hearing”.

The judge agreed that Mr Rackham was provided with reasonable adjustments, such as being allowed to complete the application form offline with assistance. However, some of the changes he desired were deemed “simply not realistic”.

Mr Rackham also proposed that the commission establish a mock scenario to evaluate his responses using qualifying test situations. Judge Postle agreed that while a mock scenario could be a “legitimate aid” in a tribunal, it would be “far too onerous” on the commission to set up live scenarios.

He added: “The qualifying test that simply involves 20 questions would have to be scripted, the form loaded and have to be done in a time frame which would be a significant burden on the respondents. It was simply not reasonable or realistic to turn it into a live video.”