Disability Discrimination – ET’s Reasons for Dismissing Claim ‘Inadequate’

One of the most fundamental principles of justice is that unsuccessful litigants must be given an adequate explanation of the reasons why they have lost. In the context of a disability discrimination claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) was found to have failed in that basic task.

The case…

Jun 22, 2022

Pexels vojtech okenka 392018 1024x683

One of the most fundamental principles of justice is that unsuccessful litigants must be given an adequate explanation of the reasons why they have lost. In the context of a disability discrimination claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) was found to have failed in that basic task.

The case concerned a probationary employee who suffered from medical conditions that amounted to a disability. She was dismissed, purportedly due to performance issues. She launched a direct discrimination claim on the basis that the true reason for her dismissal was her disability. The ET, however, rejected her claim.

In upholding her challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that, in giving reasons for its decision, the ET failed to engage with her case that her line manager had exhibited a discriminatory mindset by displaying a dismissive and pejorative attitude in relation to her health.

The ET failed to resolve certain factual disputes that were potentially relevant to the outcome of the case. In particular, it made no findings of fact as to the line manager’s state of knowledge of the employee’s impairments or whether she had in fact acted in the manner complained of prior to the dismissal decision.

The EAT noted that the ET’s reasons for its decision were required to be adequate rather than perfect. It had, however, failed to meet that threshold and that was a matter which could not be overlooked. The EAT directed a rehearing of the employee’s claim before a freshly constituted ET.

Employment Judge Embarked on ‘Frolic of his Own’ – EAT Ruling

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment judge went on a frolic of his own. The case concerned a senior employee of a global company who was seconded on a short-term basis to run its operations in Canada. After his commission payments – which in…

Right to Disconnect

Article from the Financial News - Friday August 27th 2021 When the pandemic struck, many businesses were forced to remove staff from the office and set them up at home at short notice. In the past 17 months, businesses have worked effectively with staff working from home. Productivity has increased, and staff have found that a more flexible working pattern has enabled a better work-life balance for many. Now that home schooling has become a distant memory, we hear that parents, grandparents and…

Whistleblowing and the Public Interest – Guideline EAT Ruling

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling. Whilst working for a law firm as a consultant, a solicitor made disclosures in the form of emails in which he expressed the view that a client was being overcharged. After his consultancy was terminated, he complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET)…