EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reinstatement/re-engagement
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability-related discrimination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct disability discrimination,br />Claimant, a diabetic, dismissed for watching pornographic material on a computer at work – Defence that he was suffering a hypoglycaemic episode and not responsible for his actions – Defence rejected – Tribunal holds
(a) that dismissal unfair because the decision-taker refused to ‘engage with’ the defence notwithstanding material adduced in support of it; and that if the defence had been properly considered it would have been accepted; reinstatement ordered
(b) that dismissal constituted direct disability discrimination, alternatively disability-related discrimination.
Held:
(1) Tribunal entitled on the evidence before it to reach the conclusions that it did, and to order reinstatement.
(2) The Council’s conduct did not constitute either direct or disability-related discrimination. The fact that the explanation which the Council rejected related to the Claimant’s disability did not mean that the rejection was on the ground of that disability or of a reason related to it. It was necessary that the disability should be (at least part of) the reason for that rejection in the sense explained in such cases as Nagarajan and Taylor v OCS. (Also, if the Claimant failed to establish direct discrimination he would not in any event, since Malcolm, be able to succeed on disability-related discrimination.)
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0038 – 09 – 0212
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401694