EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
Nicholas Kirker was employed by British Sugar plc as a shift chemist until dismissed. He has very poor eyesight and is registered as fully blind. He claimed he had been discriminated against as a disabled person and unfairly dismissed. Both claims succeeded in the employment tribunal and were upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. he applied for a job as a warehouse operative, through a company called Ambitions Personnel. He gave British Sugar as a referee. He was not appointed to the post he sought, although the position remained unfilled. He applicied against Ambitions Personnel, alleging disability discrimination, later joining in British Sugar, alleging victimisation. He claimed that the reference supplied by British Sugar to Ambitions Personnel was unsatisfactory. British Sugar successfully applied to have the claim against it struck out, on the basis of the Adekeye decision. The tribunal was plainly unhappy at being obliged to follow and apply this decision, observing that ‘a more purposive approach . . might now find more support in today’s social and judicial climate’
Diane Angel was employed by New Possibilities NHS Trust until July 1998, when she was dismissed from her nursing post because she suffered from back and hip problems. She made a successful claim to an employment tribunal in respect of her dismissal. In January 2000 the Trust supplied a reference for her to a prospective employer. This contained material she considered to be adverse because of her earlier proceedings. In March 2000 she presented a second application to an employment tribunal, complaining of victimisation. Following a preliminary hearing the tribunal ruled, in August 2000, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
Charmaine Bond suffers from back injuries sustained in a road accident. She was employed by Hackney Citizens’ Advice Bureau until she was made redundant in October 1999. She then made three successive applications to an employment tribunal: in November 1999, when she claimed she had been discriminated against on account of her disability; in January 2000, when she alleged breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages; and in June 2000, when she presented the application now under consideration. In this application she claimed she had been victimised in that the bureau had refused to supply her with a reference and had given false information in reply to enquiries by two companies which had insured her property in respect of mortgage repayments. The alleged acts of victimisation all related to periods after her employment with the bureau had come to an end. In respect of each case, the tribunal expressed regret at its decision.
Gerald Jones was employed by 3M Healthcare Ltd as a computer network analyst until dismissed in November 1997. He brought proceedings, which were unsuccessful, for unfair dismissal and sex and disability discrimination. While employed Mr Jones had received business cards from other organisations. He had left these cards in his office when his employment ended. In September 1999 he asked 3M to return the cards, but the company declined to do so. Mr Jones then brought proceedings in the county court, and the cards were delivered to him pursuant to an order of the court made in February 2000. Thereafter, in March 2000, Mr Jones made an application to an employment tribunal, complaining that in respect of 3M’s earlier refusal to return the cards he had been subjected to victimisation and discrimination on the grounds of sex and disability, the disability being severe clinical depression. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Disability Discrimination Act, because at the time he was not employed by 3M, but that it did have jurisdiction to hear the victimisation claim made under the Sex Discrimination Act.
Held: The appeals were dismissed, applying Adekeye. ‘If there is any escape other than by legislative amendment, it lies only, it seems to us, in the House of Lords’.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
Citations:
EAT/1487/00, EAT/0714/00, EAT/1099/00, EAT/1220/00, [2002] ICR 341
Statutes:
Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive No 76/207/EEC)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Post Office v Adekeye CA 13-Nov-1996
Race discrimination which took place after a dismissal was not unlawful within the section, since that first required the context of employment, and after the dismissal, the applicant was no longer in that employment. The natural meaning of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.168472
