An employment tribunal was wrong to assume that an autistic job applicant was not stressed simply because he appeared confident during an interview. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ordered part of his discrimination case to be heard again. The decision raises important questions about how employers assess disabled candidates and whether traditional recruitment methods give everyone a fair opportunity.
By Maria Camara
How can an interviewer tell whether someone is stressed?
They might look for nervousness, hesitation or visible discomfort. Someone who answers questions confidently and stands up for themselves might be assumed to be coping perfectly well.
But people do not all experience or display stress in the same way. What appears calm on the outside may conceal considerable anxiety.
This was central to the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026] EAT 153, delivered on 9 October 2026.
The appeal tribunal found that the original employment tribunal had wrongly relied upon assumptions about how people normally behave when deciding whether an autistic job applicant had experienced stress.
The case provides an important reminder that disability discrimination cannot always be assessed by applying conventional expectations about behaviour.
What happened?
Mr Bryce, who has Asperger’s syndrome and dyslexia, applied for a team manager position in Coventry City Council’s revenue services department.
Asperger’s syndrome is a term historically used to describe a form of autism and is now generally included within the wider autism spectrum.
Mr Bryce informed the council about his disabilities before his interview in February 2022.
The council agreed to several adjustments. His interview was scheduled at the end of the working day so that additional time could be allowed if necessary. He received the interview questions 24 minutes beforehand, and interviewers agreed to repeat or rephrase questions when required.
Eight candidates competed for two positions. Mr Bryce received the lowest score and was unsuccessful.
He brought claims under the Equality Act 2010, arguing that the interview arrangements had placed him at a disadvantage and that his disability had contributed to his rejection.
The original employment tribunal dismissed his claims in October 2023.
He appealed.
The problem with judging appearances
One of Mr Bryce’s arguments was that his disabilities caused him stress in unfamiliar situations, including job interviews.
The original tribunal accepted that he generally experienced such difficulties. However, it concluded that he had not been stressed during this particular interview.
Its reasoning relied heavily upon the observations of an experienced interviewer, Mr Stinton.
Mr Stinton considered that Mr Bryce appeared confident. He had explained the adjustments he needed and had refused a request to share his computer screen during his presentation.
The interviewer believed that someone experiencing stress might agree to something they did not want to do rather than refuse.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal identified a fundamental problem with that reasoning.
The interviewer was making assumptions based upon how neurotypical people might behave.
Neurotypical generally describes people whose neurological functioning follows patterns regarded as typical.
An autistic person may experience stress without displaying the signs another person expects to see.
The appeal judge, Her Honour Judge Joffe, found that the tribunal had accepted the interviewer’s assessment without considering whether someone with Mr Bryce’s disabilities might express stress differently.
It had also preferred the interviewer’s impressions, despite his lack of specialist expertise in Mr Bryce’s conditions, over Mr Bryce’s own evidence about how interviews affected him.
That conclusion could not stand.
The appeal judge also found that, if the original tribunal had instead concluded that Mr Bryce experienced stress but that it made no material difference to his performance, it had failed to explain that finding adequately.
What does discrimination arising from disability mean?
Mr Bryce’s successful appeal concerned section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
This deals with discrimination arising from disability.
In plain English, it means treating someone unfavourably because of something resulting from their disability.
For example, a disabled employee might have difficulty concentrating or communicating in particular circumstances. If an employer penalises them for the resulting behaviour, that may amount to discrimination even where the employer is not deliberately targeting the disability itself.
An employer may have a defence if it can demonstrate that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
That means showing that the decision served a genuine and lawful purpose and was justified in the particular circumstances.
In Mr Bryce’s case, the central question is whether stress arising from his disabilities contributed to the council’s decision not to appoint him.
That question has not yet been finally determined.
Why did his reasonable-adjustments appeal fail?
Mr Bryce also argued that the council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to the interview process.
Employers have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to remove or reduce substantial disadvantages experienced by disabled applicants and employees.
A substantial disadvantage is one that is more than minor or trivial.
Mr Bryce had difficulty quickly recalling examples of his experience and explaining how he met the requirements of the role.
He argued that interviewers should have used closed questions, ultimately proposing questions requiring only yes-or-no answers.
The appeal judge accepted that the wording of questions could affect how quickly someone with his disabilities could respond. On that point, the original tribunal’s reasoning had been wrong.
However, the council had already followed guidance from the National Autistic Society by asking specific questions about relevant experience.
The judge agreed that asking only yes-or-no questions would have prevented the interviewers from properly assessing whether Mr Bryce possessed the skills required for the management position.
His reasonable-adjustments appeal therefore failed.
There was nevertheless another important legal clarification.
The original tribunal had suggested that the council could simply accept the adjustments requested by Mr Bryce without considering anything further.
The appeal judge explained that this was not necessarily correct.
An employer’s duty is not automatically limited to the adjustments a disabled applicant specifically requests.
Employers may need to consider other reasonable measures to address a disadvantage of which they are, or should be, aware.
What was the exact outcome of the appeal?
Mr Bryce succeeded in challenging the tribunal’s treatment of his disability-related stress, but he did not win his discrimination claim outright.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered a fresh hearing before a different tribunal, which must reconsider whether stress arising from his disability contributed to his unsuccessful application and, if so, whether the council’s decision was legally justified.
His separate claim that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed.
An additional ground of appeal, concerning whether difficulties demonstrating communication and other skills arose from his disability, was also rejected. That particular argument had not been properly advanced in the original proceedings.
The final outcome of the section 15 discrimination claim therefore remains undecided.
The EAT identified legal errors in the original tribunal’s reasoning. It did not find that Coventry City Council had committed unlawful discrimination.
No compensation was awarded by the appeal tribunal.
Are traditional interviews always fair?
There is a wider issue here.
Recruitment processes often reward candidates who think quickly, speak confidently and produce polished answers under pressure.
Yet performing well at an interview is not necessarily the same as performing well in a job.
A capable worker may struggle to recall examples of their experience in an artificial interview setting but demonstrate excellent judgement and ability in everyday employment.
The appeal judge recognised that alternative assessment methods might sometimes be more suitable for disabled applicants.
Practical exercises, written responses, additional preparation time or different questioning techniques may help employers obtain a more accurate picture of a candidate’s abilities.
That does not mean every candidate should receive identical adjustments. Autism affects individuals differently, and arrangements must reflect their particular circumstances.
The objective should be to assess whether someone can do the job, not simply whether they can perform well in a conventional interview.
The Solidarity view
For Solidarity, this decision has implications beyond recruitment.
Managers dealing with disciplinary matters, capability assessments and grievances should not assume that someone’s outward behaviour accurately reflects their internal experience.
An employee who appears calm may be distressed. Someone who communicates directly may be misunderstood as confrontational. A worker who struggles to answer questions under pressure may nevertheless understand their job extremely well.
Trade union representatives should challenge assessments based upon stereotypes rather than evidence.
Employers are entitled to assess whether people have the necessary skills for a particular role. Disabled applicants are not automatically entitled to appointment or every adjustment they request.
But fairness requires employers to understand the difficulties individuals face and consider reasonable ways of addressing them.
The lesson from Bryce is that people should be judged on their actual abilities and circumstances rather than assumptions about how they ought to behave.
That is an important principle for disabled workers and one which trade unions should defend.
Case reference: Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026] EAT 153, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Her Honour Judge Joffe, 9 October 2026.
Full judgment: Read the official Employment Appeal Tribunal decision
