DLA Piper is to defend itself for a second time against a high-profile disability discrimination claim after a ruling this week from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

In a judgment handed down yesterday (15 June), EAT president Mr Justice Underhill sent the claim to be heard again in an employment tribunal later this year.

The claim relates a job offer for a professional support lawyer role that DLA Piper withdrew in 2008, which the claimant alleges was the result of an admission of previous mental health issues.

The unnamed claimant, known only as 'J', applied to the law firm in June 2008 and verbally accepted a job offer following two interviews. However, after disclosing a history of depression, the claimant says that the law firm withdrew the offer, citing a recruitment freeze.

Shortly afterwards a claim was filed at the employment tribunal in September 2008.

The case was initially struck out in March 2009 after the tribunal ruled that the claimant was not disabled under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. This was appealed, leading to a two-day hearing in February 2010 before the EAT, and has now been sent back for a second hearing at the employment tribunal.

The claimant is being represented by Russell Jones & Walker, with Matrix Chambers' James Laddie instructed as counsel.

DLA Piper was advised by Matthew Howse, who was a partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf while the case was being heard before the EAT, but has since moved to Morgan Lewis & Bockius, taking the case with him. Littleton Chambers' Daniel Tatton Brown was instructed as counsel.

Russell Jones employment solicitor Kiran Daurka, who advised the claimant, commented: "While my client is clearly pleased that she has won her appeal, she is now required to go to a third hearing at which her medical records will be re-examined by a tribunal panel."

She added: "The battle through the legal system that J has had to face so far highlights just how difficult it is for individuals with mental health conditions to bring disability discrimination claims.

"This case also highlights the very real difficulties faced, not just by my client, but for the many individuals who experience stigma upon revealing mental health conditions. Today's judgment is a missed opportunity for the EAT to tackle the difficulties met in mental health cases in a more meaningful way."

A spokesperson for DLA Piper commented: "We continue to maintain that the firm acted entirely appropriately in responding to a decline in market conditions and applying a 'recruitment freeze', which unfortunately caught the job application involving the claimant. We communicated that to the claimant prior to her acceptance of our offer of employment and prior to her deciding to resign from her, then current, position."

The firm added: "The judgment of the Appeal Tribunal has asked a new tribunal to reconsider the complex issues raised by the appeal in the first instance. It was open to the Appeal Tribunal to reverse the original decision, which it has declined to do."

"We will continue to maintain both the technical and substantive elements of our defence."