Practice and Procedure – Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
The Claimant was a Latvian national with a limited command of English. At the trial of her claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination she acted in person, assisted by an interpreter. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) dismissed her claims. The Claimant appealed on various grounds including two relating to the discrimination claim under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and a complaint that she had been given insufficient time to cross-examine the main witness for the Respondent.
At the Rule 3(10) Hearing, the Judge allowed the two section 20 grounds (as contained in an Amended Notice of Appeal signed by counsel then acting for the Claimant) to proceed to a Full Hearing and stayed the appeal on the cross-examination ground (not contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal) pending the ET’s response to the allegation. The ET provided its response, to which the Claimant replied.
At the Full Hearing, the EAT resolved the ambiguity in the Rule 3(10) Order in favour of the Claimant; lifted the stay on the ground relating to the cross-examination and treated it as if contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal. The ET’s account of the time afforded for cross-examination was preferred. The EAT was satisfied that there was no basis to challenge the case management decision as to the allocation of time.
As to the section 20 appeal, there was no basis to challenge the ET’s conclusion of fact: Noor v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2011] ICR 695, General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza [2015] ICR 169, Code of Practice Employment [2011] Chapter 6, considered.
Citations:
[2018] UKEAT 0078 – 18 – 2806
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.630716
