EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator for the Claimant who was an HIV+ care worker dismissed because of the risk of transmission to users of the Respondent’s health care facilities. Further, the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Claimant had been treated less favourably when, in the absence of his area manager, his line manager had attended a meeting with him and with his director. Such disclosure to her was not a breach of confidentiality.
The Tribunal had not erred in its approach to disability related discrimination and to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under s3A(1) and 3A(2) for the Respondent had failed to justify its admittedly less favourable treatment of the Claimant who, following disclosure of his HIV+ status, was suspended and dismissed.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0671 – 05 – 1004, UKEAT/0671/05, [2006] IRLR 850
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3A(5), Directive 2000/78/EC Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
Citing:
Cited – Post Office v Jones CA 5-Jun-2001
The employee had become diabetic. Upon his coming to require insulin, the employer undertook a new risk assessment, and restricted his duties as a driver. He claimed disability discrimination. At the tribunal, both employer and employee brought . .
Cited – Williams v J Walter Thompson Group Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
In giving their decision, the court reminded tribunals when preparing their judgments, to make sure the reasons were user friendly. Here time had been wasted with confusion about the Roman Numerals used to number the reasons. . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited – H J Heinz Co Ltd v Kenrick EAT 3-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation. . .
Cited – Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd EAT 6-Mar-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
The claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: The new . .
Cited – Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc CA 27-Oct-2005
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott EAT 11-Mar-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: just and equitable
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241487