The employee developed a series of headaches. He was off work for many weeks, and the company cut his sick pay. He claimed disability discrimination. The company claimed he was not being paid because he was not at work, the company having exercised its discretion to stop payment of sick pay generally. The correct question was whether he was refused sick pay for a reason related to his disability, on the facts found by the Tribunal. The tribunal having found that the company had made that decision, the decision that he had not been paid because of his sickness was perverse. ‘In our judgment, the natural meaning of ‘scheme or arrangement for the benefit of employees’ does not include payment of sick pay by an employer to an employee under a contract of employment. Such payments are made by the employer to rather than ‘for the benefit’ of the employee. Further, they are made pursuant to the contract of employment, an expression used in s. 4(3) rather that ‘under an arrangement’, the expression used in s 6(11).’ The decision was also set aside for other reasons. Case remitted.
Judges:
Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade QC
Citations:
EAT/184/00, [2001] IRLR 719, [2001] UKEAT 184 – 00 – 1809
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2)(d)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Cited – O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs CA 30-Mar-2007
The claimant suffered depression, and complained that the respondent’s reduction in her pay after long periods of sickness was discriminatory. She appealed decisions that it was not. She said that a reasonable adjustment would have been to continue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.168313