Dismissal Can Be Unlawful Disability Discrimination If Reasonable Adjustments Are Not Made

AC
Ashby Cohen Solicitors Ltd

Contributor

Ashby Cohen Solicitors Ltd
In the case of Fareham College Corporation v Walters which recently came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), it was ruled that a failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate an employee suffering from a disability rendered his dismissal an unfair act of disability discrimination.
UK Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the case of Fareham College Corporation v Walters which recently came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), it was ruled that a failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate an employee suffering from a disability rendered his dismissal an unfair act of disability discrimination.

It was made clear in the case that, had reasonable adjustments (for example, transferring the employee to a more suitable position) been made, the dismissal could have been avoided.

The significance of this ruling is that, in appropriate circumstances, it provides a means by which disabled employees can circumvent the problems which have arisen since the ruling of the House of Lords in the housing case of Lewisham v Malcolm.

Following that decision, the non-disabled comparator with whom a disabled employee has to compare himself is not, as had previously been the case, simply a non-disabled fellow employee, but is instead a non-disabled fellow employee who is in the same situation as the claimant.

For example, in the light of the House of Lords' ruling, if a disabled person has to take a lot of time off work because of their disability and is subsequently dismissed for their absences, the correct comparator is now deemed to be a non-disabled person who had the same number of absences. Obviously, the employer would be justified in dismissing the non-disabled employee, so the claimant's dismissal would also be deemed fair.

Before the House of Lords decision, the comparator used would have been simply a non-disabled fellow employee, who by definition would not have had to take time off. As the claimant and the comparator would have been treated differently, and because the difference in treatment was because of the claimant's disability, the dismissal would have been ruled unfair.

The ruling in the Fareham College Corporation v Walters case gives disabled claimants a way of sidestepping the comparator issue and seeking redress through other means.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More