Are You Sure Your Employee’s Misbehaviour is Not Disability-Related?

You may be justified in dismissing a misbehaving employee but, before doing so, it is always essential to ask yourself whether their conduct may arise from a disability. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a diabetic hotel worker’s disability discrimination…

Jul 25, 2022

Pexels pixabay 277572 683x1024

You may be justified in dismissing a misbehaving employee but, before doing so, it is always essential to ask yourself whether their conduct may arise from a disability. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a diabetic hotel worker’s disability discrimination claim.

The employee, who suffered from insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes, admitted that his behaviour in the six months he worked at the hotel was sometimes poor. He was dismissed following an incident in which he was rude to a senior manager who subsequently told him that he had lost his job because of his argumentative and unprofessional manner and the friction he caused within his team.

However, following a hearing, the ET found that he had suffered discrimination in consequence of something arising from his disability, contrary to Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. There was no reason to doubt his description of the effect that his uncontrolled diabetes had on his behaviour and the ET was satisfied on the evidence that there was a link or connection between the two.

The manager was aware of his diabetes, which was agreed to be a disability, yet had carried out no further inquiries or sought to educate himself further as to the potential consequences of the condition. No medical advice was sought and, in dismissing him, the employer failed to follow its own contractual disciplinary procedures. No alternatives to dismissal were considered.

The ET acknowledged that it was entirely legitimate for the employer to require an acceptable level of behaviour, attitude and professionalism on the part of its staff. However, there was no question that it had failed to attempt to achieve that aim in anything like a proportionate manner. The employee’s dismissal had a devastating effect on him, seriously affecting his mental health for a period of about three months.

His further claims of harassment and a failure to make reasonable adjustments to cater for his disability were rejected. He was, however, awarded a total of £29,746 in compensation, including £18,000 for injury to his feelings. The award was uplifted by 20 per cent to take account of the employer’s near-complete failure to follow the Acas disciplinary code. The ET recommended that the employer review and update its policy with regard to disabled employees, together with its disciplinary and grievance procedures.

Engaging a Tradesman? Do You Understand Your Health and Safety Duties?

If a tradesman sustains injury whilst working on a client’s premises, should the client be liable to pay compensation? The High Court pondered that important issue in the case of a builder who fell through a barn roof, suffering catastrophic injuries. The builder, who was in his late 50s, was engaged by a farmer to replace the barn’s guttering. Working alongside his son, he sensibly installed crawler boards so as to spread his weight on the barn’s fragile roof. As his son passed sections of…

Knee-Jerk Dismissals Are No Way to Resolve Boardroom Conflicts

Boardroom tensions often lead to precipitate action but resorting to dismissal without following proper procedures is never a good solution. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in upholding whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and age discrimination complaints brought by a start-up company’s former chief financial officer. The woman’s dismissal occurred against a background of increasingly dysfunctional boardroom relationships. Without due process, she was removed as a Companies House…

Leaky Victorian Drains Trigger Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim

It almost goes without saying that employers who fail to provide their staff with a safe working environment positively invite Employment Tribunal (ET) complaints. A case on point concerned an opticians’ shop that was afflicted by leaks and nasty smells arising from an antiquated drainage system. An optical consultant who worked in the shop suffered from multiple sclerosis. Leaks from the Victorian drains caused her particular anxiety because medical treatment she was undergoing suppressed her…