The case of Abrahart, with its tragic facts and powerful judgment, will emit shockwaves throughout post-16 education in the United Kingdom (UK). It is a reminder of the importance of the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA), and of ensuring that institutional policies and practices align with it. As a result, this case has the potential to generate wide-scale scrutiny of current policy and practice and to drive significant change in reasonable adjustment procedures, particularly in the context of assessments.

Facts

Natasha Abrahart, a second year undergraduate Physics student, died by committing suicide when she should have been giving an assessed group presentation. This assessment was part of a compulsory module which included five other oral assessments, in the form of interviews – all of which Natasha had either not attended or in which she had performed badly. The main question before the High Court was whether the University had discriminated against Natasha in failing to adjust the format of these assessments.

In October 2017, before the first of the assessed interviews, the University was unaware that Natasha might be experiencing mental health difficulties. After this time, staff repeatedly advised her to contact the Counselling Service, her doctor, and Disability Services. Natasha did not do so. In late February 2018, her housemate (on her behalf) told the School Administration Manager that Natasha had acted on suicidal thoughts and requested help. Natasha then saw a doctor who diagnosed depression and ‘chronic social anxiety with suicidal ideation’ – but this was not communicated to the School of Physics. The School encouraged Natasha to identify alternative ways in which the assessments might be conducted – eg in writing – and sent a form through which Natasha could request that account be taken of her ‘extenuating circumstances’. Natasha did not suggest alternative modes of assessment, nor complete the form. She continued to receive generic module emails about the upcoming assessed group presentations – on the day of which she ended her life.

Linden J held that the University had breached the EqA through discrimination arising in consequence of Natasha’s disability, contrary to s 15; as well as because of its failure to comply with the s 20 reasonable adjustment duty. He described the latter as the ‘heart’ [12] and ‘beginning and end’ [140] of the case. The present discussion will therefore focus on this point.

Competence standards

Abrahart indicates that education providers must be particularly attentive to the distinction between a competence actually being assessed and the methods used to carry out that assessment – the former, but not the latter, falling outside the scope of the s 20 reasonable adjustment duty (sch 13(4)). The University argued that oral communication was itself a competence being assessed. Linden J, however, rejected this view – drawing on the module’s “independent learning outcomes” and marking criteria to rule that oral communication was not itself a competence standard and that the interviews and group presentation were merely methods of assessment ([172]-[202]) – and therefore subject to the reasonable adjustment duty.

The second part of this blog will discuss further points of significance in the case, including due process, the duty of educational institutions to identify possible reasonable adjustments, and the anticipatory nature of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.