EAT Disability Discrimination – Less Favourable Treatment / Reasonable Adjustments / Justification
The Claimant was a prison psychologist who developed a depressive illness amounting to a disability within the terms of the 1995 Act following, and at least partly caused by, an episode of bullying at work. After a prolonged sickness absence she was dismissed for ‘medical inefficiency’. The Tribunal found that the Prison Service had failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her disability – principally by transferring her to other work – and that it had discriminated against her for reasons related to her disability in various specific respects including her dismissal.
Held that the Tribunal had misdirected itself as regards the reasonable adjustments claim by relying on Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v. Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566: which was disapproved in Tarbuck v. Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. [2006] IRLR 664. The reasonable adjustments claim would have to be remitted in respect of the earlier period of her employment; but as regards the later period, it was clear that her condition had deteriorated to a point at which it was not reasonable to expect the Service to make the proposed adjustments, notwithstanding that that deterioration may have been caused or contributed to by earlier breaches, so that the claim in respect of that period fell to be dismissed.
Held that in relation to the discrimination claims, the Tribunal had wrongly failed to consider whether the disability-related factors on which it relied were the reason for the acts complained of and that if it had directed itself correctly it could not have found that they were. Taylor v. OCS Group Ltd. [2006] ICR 1602 relied on. Other misdirections also found: Macdonald v. Ministry of Defence [2003] ICR 937 and Project Management Institute v. Latif (UKEAT/0028/07) applied.
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0420 – 06 – 0608, [2007] IRLR 95
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT 4-Mar-2003
EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s . .
Cited by:
Cited – HM Land Registry v Wakefield EAT 17-Dec-2008
hmlr_wakefieldEAT2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
The claimant applied for promotion to a more senior management post. He was disabled by his stammer. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.258611
