Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been…

Oct 05, 2021

Israel andrade yi 9sivvt s unsplash 1024x683

After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been subjected to two acts of direct disability discrimination: his dismissal and the refusal of two of the employer’s founding directors to acknowledge his ill health. The employer’s contention that he had been dismissed solely for the non-discriminatory reason of poor performance was rejected.

The ET found that all three of the employer’s directors, who worked closely together, were aware of his condition prior to his dismissal. The employer had moved virtually directly from learning of his disability to terminating his employment. When he complained about his dismissal, two of the directors colluded in maintaining their assertions that they had no advance knowledge of his ill health.

The ET also found that, in seeking to embellish the employer’s dissatisfaction with the man’s performance and bolster its case, one of the directors had altered an email so as to give the impression that a client had specifically named him as the person responsible for a serious overcharging error.

Anyone aware of his diagnosis would have known that type 1 diabetes is a lifelong condition that, unless controlled by medication, can have a significant effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The man testified that the condition caused tiredness and digestive complications that made it difficult for him to perform his extensive role in entertaining clients.

In dismissing the employer’s challenge to those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the ET had rejected several other complaints put forward by the man in what was a long and hard-fought case. It could find nothing perverse or unfair in the ET’s careful and balanced conclusions. If not agreed, the amount of the man’s compensation would be decided at a further hearing.

Bank Relieved of Compensation Bill Despite Employee’s Unfair Dismissal

Financial institutions are entitled to expect their staff to display a high level of probity. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in denying compensation to a bank employee despite having found that his dismissal was unfair. The man had been working for the bank in a highly responsible role for only a short while when an internal investigation revealed that he was a director of an external company. He had not obtained the bank’s consent to hold that appointment. Further inquiries…

Whistleblowing Nurse’s Dismissal ‘Grossly Unfair’, Tribunal Rules

There are few things more serious in an employment context than sacking a whistleblower for performing a valuable public service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a highly regarded nurse who was treated grossly unfairly for doing what she considered to be her duty. The nurse had an unblemished employment record stretching to 38 years and had received commendations for her leadership skills, positivity and enthusiasm. On a number of occasions, she expressed…

Collective Bargaining Agreements and Direct Inducements to Employees

The ability of trade unions to negotiate effectively on their members’ behalf would be greatly diminished if employers were permitted to bypass collective bargaining agreements and offer inducements directly to employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in a ruling which stands as a warning to employers. The case concerned sometimes acrimonious pay negotiations between employers on an industrial site and their unionised workforce. A collective bargaining agreement was in…