EAT Unfair Dismissal / Disability Discrimination – 1. The ET did not err in law when it decided that the Claimant because of his inability to participate in a disciplinary hearing on account of his profound deafness, had been unfairly dismissed. – 2. The ET correctly applied the judgment of the EAT in Whitbread and Co Plc v Mills [1988] IRLR 501. There is no relevant distinction in the approach in that case and of the EAT in Advihilli v Exports Credits Guaranteed Department unreported EAT/917/97. – 3. The ET did not err in finding that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability in the disciplinary process. – 4. Allowing the cross-appeal, the ET had failed to apply its finding that the Claimant was dismissed for misconduct, but his dismissal occurred because at least in part he was unable effectively to participate in the disciplinary process and could not put forward explanations when put to him, and they were reasons which related to his disability.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC
Citations:
UKEAT/803/04, [2005] UKEAT 0803 – 04 – 2305
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Taylor v OCS Group Ltd CA 31-May-2006
The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.227027