Employer still won't accept I am disabled in a Tribunal case

Thanks for the replies so far. I'm sorry, but what is it too late to worry about? My former employer has been asked by the Tribunal whether they concede my disability and, in reply to the Tribunal, given my impact statement and all the evidence I provided, they have said that no, they don't concede and that, among other things, I have not provided expert evidence that I have ASD. Is that just another bullying or delaying tactic or can what they have claimed be considered by a judge to have merit, even though they haven't really made any concrete claims? My impact statement, which the judge ordered me to send to the former employer and not to the Tribunal, was several pages long and included information about trouble with social interaction and sensory overload, etc., and I pointed out several items that were already known to the employer, because they were mentioned on my performance reviews (basically they were criticising me because of traits related to my disability).

I guess what I am asking is whether the former employer's justification for not conceding my disability be considered sufficient by a Tribunal judge when all it contains are blanket statements and no specific rebuttal of any of the paragraphs contained in my impact statement. Is it common for the employer not to concede disability when there is an official diagnosis, which was provided to them both during employment and again when the impact statement was provided? Do employers often claim that there is no expert evidence that there is an ASD condition under these circumstances?

From what you have said, it seems that the evidence I have provided is enough, but I am wondering whether it is possible that a judge would take my veritable mountain of information and the former employer's one page response and still determine that I am not disabled under the Equality Act. What additional information can I provide as proof of my disability if the impact statement and official diagnosis letter wasn't enough?

Basically the former employer has claimed that I have lied in my impact statement and justifies that by saying that I have provided no proof. At this point, who carries the burden of proof, in a legal sense? Do I need to prove everything in my impact statement, or do they need to prove that the paragraphs in the impact statement are not true?

Thanks again.

The proof in a civil case is based on 'the balance of probabilities'.

This means that if you have a probability that 51% that what you say is correct then the proof is with you.

For your former employer to win then they must damage your case so it is less than 50% like!y that it is correct. This burden of proof for you is far less than it would be under a criminal court where it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Remember you are the plaintiff,so I believe it is your employer who has to show it is more likely than not you are not disabled.

Having said that, if your case explained the things I mentioned in my post above, the company is going to have a difficult job to counteract your arguments. As with all law cases, the only people who always gain are solicitors,, barristers and judges and there are points of law and precedent case law that are taken into consideration, as well as acas codes of practice, employment law, and the equality act.  The judge is meant to listen to the arguments and evidence, however spurious they are or appear to be and come to a conclusion.That is his job.

If you have presented your evidence there is nothing more you can do at this stage. As someone autistic myself I know how difficult it is not to worry, it is in our make-up to constantly churn things over.  But it would appear to me that your employer is just trying it on on the point often made by NTs that you don't look disabled. And you seem to have provided a stack of expert evidence to me in the form of a psychologist report that will state why you are autistic. The judge would have to consider that you were not autistic to ignore this and he is not qualified to diagnose you, so on that basis alone I would imagine you have the basis of proof you need.

 I am surprised the employer did not use the argument that it accepts one Is disabled and has given  reasonable adjustments but  the work was still not up to scratch.They would have then said that other adjustments are not reasonable and dismissal Is on capability grounds after consideration of disability. That is the usual tactic of an employee wanting to get rid of a disabled employee, not just an autistic one

 They will also often offer a 'settlement agreement' before it gets to tribunal in order to prevent costs to them and the bad publicity, this settlement is confidential and they would say if it wasn't accepted dismissal would be for poor performance or misconduct, not  on  the grounds of disability which would be unlawful.

The defence to a tribunal in most cases, would be that the company would say an employee still isn't performing despite adjustments and the dismissal is in grounds of performance and capability, and not dispute the disability. The employee would then have to provide evidence that the performance was adequate considering the needs of the job and the effect the disability has, and the alternatives that could be available including different work at the company.

The proof in a civil case is based on 'the balance of probabilities'.

This means that if you have a probability that 51% that what you say is correct then the proof is with you.

For your former employer to win then they must damage your case so it is less than 50% like!y that it is correct. This burden of proof for you is far less than it would be under a criminal court where it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Remember you are the plaintiff,so I believe it is your employer who has to show it is more likely than not you are not disabled.

Having said that, if your case explained the things I mentioned in my post above, the company is going to have a difficult job to counteract your arguments. As with all law cases, the only people who always gain are solicitors,, barristers and judges and there are points of law and precedent case law that are taken into consideration, as well as acas codes of practice, employment law, and the equality act.  The judge is meant to listen to the arguments and evidence, however spurious they are or appear to be and come to a conclusion.That is his job.

If you have presented your evidence there is nothing more you can do at this stage. As someone autistic myself I know how difficult it is not to worry, it is in our make-up to constantly churn things over.  But it would appear to me that your employer is just trying it on on the point often made by NTs that you don't look disabled. And you seem to have provided a stack of expert evidence to me in the form of a psychologist report that will state why you are autistic. The judge would have to consider that you were not autistic to ignore this and he is not qualified to diagnose you, so on that basis alone I would imagine you have the basis of proof you need.

 I am surprised the employer did not use the argument that it accepts one Is disabled and has given  reasonable adjustments but  the work was still not up to scratch.They would have then said that other adjustments are not reasonable and dismissal Is on capability grounds after consideration of disability. That is the usual tactic of an employee wanting to get rid of a disabled employee, not just an autistic one

 They will also often offer a 'settlement agreement' before it gets to tribunal in order to prevent costs to them and the bad publicity, this settlement is confidential and they would say if it wasn't accepted dismissal would be for poor performance or misconduct, not  on  the grounds of disability which would be unlawful.

The defence to a tribunal in most cases, would be that the company would say an employee still isn't performing despite adjustments and the dismissal is in grounds of performance and capability, and not dispute the disability. The employee would then have to provide evidence that the performance was adequate considering the needs of the job and the effect the disability has, and the alternatives that could be available including different work at the company.