Disability Discrimination – Corner Shops Owe the Same Duties as Multinationals

Small businesses not blessed with human resources departments can find it hard to accommodate disabled members of staff who need to take time off work. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, when it comes to catering for their needs, a corner shop owes the same legal obligations…

Aug 23, 2023

Pair of green and white chairs in barbershop 1024x683

Small businesses not blessed with human resources departments can find it hard to accommodate disabled members of staff who need to take time off work. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, when it comes to catering for their needs, a corner shop owes the same legal obligations as a multinational.

The case concerned a barber who sustained a broken shoulder in an accident. Her constant pain and restricted movement made such tasks as washing and drying her own hair difficult. She took some days off sick when her shoulder was particularly sore but was generally able to soldier on at work with the aid of prescription painkillers. On learning that she required surgery and would need to take at least six months off work, however, her boss dismissed her over the telephone.

After she launched proceedings, the ET found that her injury caused a long-term physical impairment which had an adverse impact on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities. She was thus disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The ET was also satisfied that her employer – a small business with fewer than 10 staff – knew, or at the very least ought to have known, that she had a disability from the date of her accident.

The ET found that she was dismissed because her employer had no wish to keep her on during her lengthy period of enforced absence. That absence arose from the requirement to have surgery, a necessity which itself arose from her disability. She had thus been treated unfavourably due to something arising in consequence of her disability, contrary to Section 15 of the Act.

The ET noted that she had previously had a very good working relationship with her boss and felt very sad and disappointed at the loss of her job. A single mother, she was suddenly left without sufficient income to pay bills or buy food. Her pre-existing mental health difficulties were exacerbated to the point where she had thoughts of self-harm or suicide.

She had not shown that her dismissal had caused her financial loss in that state benefits she had subsequently received more than matched sums in Statutory Sick Pay which her employer would have been obliged to pay her had she kept her job. However, the ET awarded her £10,000 in compensation for injury to her feelings, together with £727 in interest.

Control Room Operator’s Angry Comment Lands Employer in Legal Hot Water

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of Eid. The operator, who worked for a security company, was under strain due to a staff shortage arising from the festival and was anxious to find a guard to cover a day shift. He contacted the worker, who…

Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Trade Union in Delivery Riders Test Case

Are you an employee, a worker, or neither? The answer to that question could not be more important as it defines the rights you may or may not have. The Supreme Court tackled the issue in a case concerning food delivery riders, a trade union and collective bargaining rights. A trade union representing the riders made a formal request to the delivery company to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes. After the company refused, the union complained to the Central Arbitration Committee…

Brexit Cost Live-in Domestic Workers the Right to the National Minimum Wage

The UK’s departure from the EU has had profound effects on aspects of employment law. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, one of them was to remove the legal entitlement of nannies, housekeepers and other live-in domestic workers to receive the National Minimum Wage (NMW). One such worker who was engaged to work in a couple’s home succeeded in an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim that she was entitled to be paid the NMW. That was on the basis that the vast majority of live-in…