In Owen v AMEC Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision that an employee with multiple disabilities did not suffer direct disability discrimination when an offer of an overseas assignment was withdrawn, given that a medical assessment identified a high risk that he would require medical attention when overseas. The correct comparator was a person who lacked the claimant’s disabilities but was at a similar risk of needing medical attention overseas, and on the facts the comparator would have been treated in the same way. Further, as there were no less discriminatory alternatives, the requirement to pass the medical was also not unlawful indirect discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Tag: disability discrimination
Managers hearing internal appeals should be reminded of the importance of taking into account any new information or evidence that comes to light after an initial decision to dismiss but before the appeal hearing, particularly where that information relates to being disabled. This could mean adjourning to obtain medical evidence where appropriate.
In Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd, an employee dismissed for poor performance only disclosed that she suffered from depression, which affected her performance, at the appeal hearing. The EAT ruled that the tribunal had been wrong to reject her claim that the dismissal was disability discrimination simply because the employer had no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability at the time of the decision to dismiss, given it arguably did have such knowledge at the time of appeal and the appeal was an integral part of the dismissal.
The judgment also underlined that a claim of discriminatory dismissal because of “something arising in consequence of the disability” need only establish that the “something” had a material influence on the employer’s decision to dismiss and not that it was the sole or main reason. The case was remitted to be reheard.
A reference to an adjustment for disabled employees in an employer’s own policy will be relevant in determining whether there is a duty to make that adjustment, notwithstanding that the policy may be expressed to be discretionary. In Linsley v Commissioners for HMRC, the EAT held that an adjustment that is recommended in the employer’s own policy is one that is likely, at least as a starting point, to be a reasonable adjustment to make. While there may be good reasons for departing from the policy, in such cases the employer ought to be able to provide a cogent reason for doing so.
The employment tribunal had erred in not properly taking into account the existence of the employer’s policy (of giving priority over dedicated parking spaces to disabled employees) when deciding that there was no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employee needed urgent access to toilet facilities but, instead of a dedicated parking space near the office building, was offered alternative, less satisfactory options should she fail to get a space near the building on a first come, first served basis. The tribunal should also have taken into account the stress she suffered as a result of having to find a space, an issue which had been raised at an earlier point; the absence of an express reference to it in later reports did not mean that the employer was unaware of it. Where there is a long history of medical evidence and correspondence about a medical issue, an employer should review matters comprehensively and not base its approach on the most recent evidence only. The case was remitted to consider the issue of reasonableness.
- Mental Health First Aid England has published guidance for employers introducing mental health first aiders into the workplace. This highlights the importance of senior leadership engagement and makes recommendations on reviewing current working practices and support, creating clear documentation setting out the expectations and limits of the role, confidential logging of support conversations (anonymised), and training and support for those undertaking the role. There is also a guide for those undertaking the role; both are available here.
- Acas has published new guidance on neurodiversity in the workplace.
- The GMB and TUC have launched a model disability passport setting out a disabled employee’s required reasonable adjustments, to make it easier for disabled employees when changing role, line manager or employer. See here for further details.
In iForce Ltd v Wood, the EAT has clarified that there is no claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability where an employee is disciplined because they refuse to obey an instruction which they wrongly believe will exacerbate their disability, unless the disability itself causes the employee to form that mistaken belief (eg, because of pain or stress).
An employee mistakenly believed that moving to a different workstation would expose her to colder and damper working conditions which would exacerbate her osteoarthritis and so refused to do so; in fact the temperature and humidity levels were not materially different. She was unable to show that the warning she was given for refusing to move was less favourable treatment because of “something arising from her disability”. Although the causal link between the “something” and the underlying disability may be a loose one and may involve several links, there must be an actual connection, not just a perceived connection on the part of the employee.
In a bid to increase the diversity of workforces, and increase access to employment for those with disabilities, Taiwan has a quota for the number of disabled employees. We take a look at how this works in practice.
Malaysia’s Ministry of Human Resources has recently proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“IRA”) which, if introduced, would result in, amongst others, significant changes to the dispute resolution regime for employment claims in Malaysia.
- The Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeal decision that treatment of a disabled employee which is advantageous (permitting ill health early retirement) cannot be viewed as unlawful ‘unfavourable treatment’ due to disability simply because it could have been more advantageous. In this case the pension was based on the part-time hours the employee had changed to pre-retirement, as a reasonable adjustment for his disability, rather than full-time hours. However, had he been able to work full-time, he would not have been entitled to retire early at all. (Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme)
The Government has published a framework for large employers to report voluntarily on disability, mental health and wellbeing in their workplace. It suggests that employers publish a narrative explaining their activities in relation to the recruitment and retention of disabled people and to support health and wellbeing. Where possible it also recommends that employers report the percentage of individuals who consider themselves to be disabled or have a long term physical or mental health condition and the output of staff surveys measuring wellbeing.
On 30 November 2018, legislation was gazetted which proposes various amendments to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, Disability Discrimination Ordinance, Family Status Discrimination Ordinance and the Race Discrimination Ordinance. The proposed amendments reflect eight of the recommendations from the Equal Opportunities Commission Report on the Discrimination Law Review. Key changes include extending protections against discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding and extending protections against disability and racial harassment by customers.