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.

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 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…

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…

ET Should Have Considered Redeployment as Alternative to Dismissal

There are times when it is incumbent on an Employment Tribunal (ET) to consider a point of its own accord if the parties in the case have not raised it. In a recent case, a postal worker successfully argued before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET should have considered whether redeploying him would have been a suitable alternative to dismissal. The man had worked for his employer for more than 25 years. After several periods of absence between 2015 and 2019, some of which were…