sports & autism in school

I'll start by saying I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice ... just information. However the act you want is the equality act 2010. And the relevant areas are section 6 (defines disability), section 15 (defines discrimination arising from a disability), section 20-22 (defines reasonable adjustments), section 26 (defines harassment), sections 84-89 (defines how and where the definitions of discrimination apply to schools). sections 114 & 116 (defines how you bring a case against a school), section 136 (defines the burden of prove you have to meet to win your case), Schedule 1 (makes further rules about what is and isn't considered a disability), schedule 13 (further spells out how reasonable adjustments apply to schools), schedule 17 (further defines which court a case against a school should go to and some rules for that court and bringing the case).

Now lets talk about section 15. In a nutshell section 15 says

IF

• a disabled person B does something because of their disability (like have a melt down) and -
• because of the thing party A (the school) treats them unfavourably (by say suspending them) and -
• party A knew or should reasonably have inferred B was disabled

Then this is a form of discrimination unless A can show

• what they did was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The supreme court laid down a test for what counts as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in the Akerman case. Broadly there is a 4 part test.

1. the aim must be legitimate. It's got to be something important and necessary to person A and the aim can't be discriminatory in itself.
2. The unfavourable treatment must be reasonably connected to the aim. They have to show that what they are doing is or is likely to further the aim they cite.
3. The action taken must be minimal. If there is a less discriminatory way to meet the aim they could have used instead it will be disproportionate.
4. The benefit must outweigh the detriment (to the disabled person)

The Risby case established that causation in section 15 is 'but for' causation. It doesn't matter if the causation was indirect or there were other factors. If but for B being disabled the key event (eg melt down) wouldn't have happened then that is considered causation.

You should also be aware that there used to be a rule where violent behaviour was excluded from being treated as caused by a disability but for children in education the court has struck this rule down on human rights grounds.

Should you need to bring a case the forms are here the courts rules are here there are a series of videos about the court here. You may also want to read the EHRCs guides to discrimination law in schools and to reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils.

I'll start by saying I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice ... just information. However the act you want is the equality act 2010. And the relevant areas are section 6 (defines disability), section 15 (defines discrimination arising from a disability), section 20-22 (defines reasonable adjustments), section 26 (defines harassment), sections 84-89 (defines how and where the definitions of discrimination apply to schools). sections 114 & 116 (defines how you bring a case against a school), section 136 (defines the burden of prove you have to meet to win your case), Schedule 1 (makes further rules about what is and isn't considered a disability), schedule 13 (further spells out how reasonable adjustments apply to schools), schedule 17 (further defines which court a case against a school should go to and some rules for that court and bringing the case).

Now lets talk about section 15. In a nutshell section 15 says

IF

• a disabled person B does something because of their disability (like have a melt down) and -
• because of the thing party A (the school) treats them unfavourably (by say suspending them) and -
• party A knew or should reasonably have inferred B was disabled

Then this is a form of discrimination unless A can show

• what they did was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The supreme court laid down a test for what counts as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in the Akerman case. Broadly there is a 4 part test.

1. the aim must be legitimate. It's got to be something important and necessary to person A and the aim can't be discriminatory in itself.
2. The unfavourable treatment must be reasonably connected to the aim. They have to show that what they are doing is or is likely to further the aim they cite.
3. The action taken must be minimal. If there is a less discriminatory way to meet the aim they could have used instead it will be disproportionate.
4. The benefit must outweigh the detriment (to the disabled person)

The Risby case established that causation in section 15 is 'but for' causation. It doesn't matter if the causation was indirect or there were other factors. If but for B being disabled the key event (eg melt down) wouldn't have happened then that is considered causation.

You should also be aware that there used to be a rule where violent behaviour was excluded from being treated as caused by a disability but for children in education the court has struck this rule down on human rights grounds.

Should you need to bring a case the forms are here the courts rules are here there are a series of videos about the court here. You may also want to read the EHRCs guides to discrimination law in schools and to reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils.

More to the point is the statutory guidance on exclusions.  SENDIST can overturn a permanent exclusion (expulsion).  The appeal against a fixed term exclusion is first to the Governing Body, then an appeal to a panel convened by the LEA.  The issue of "violent behaviour" is covered in the latest exclusion guidance.  The latest guidance is here:  assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../Suspension_and_permanent_exclusion_guidance_May_2023.pdf