- Calming Ourselves for What Lies Ahead
- Give Yourself Time to Reflect
- Why Don’t We Ask for and Accept Help from Colleagues?
- How to Discuss Mental Health with an Employee
- Hey! We’re going to Barbados!
- How to Work (and Sleep!) in Hot Weather
- Will You Please Take Notice!!
- Determining the Date of Termination
- Dealing with Smelly Workers
- How to Tackle Difficult Conversations Virtually
- How to Manage an Emotionally Needy Team Member
- Redundancy and Furlough - Part 2
- Redundancy and Furlough - Part 1
- Flexible Furlough
- Back to Work
- Build Your Resilience
- The Overweight Elephant in the Room
- Contractual Skulduggery and TUPE
- Zoom Gloom
- How to Support Employees’ Mental Health During Lockdown
- Obesity, Covid-19 and Business
- Flexible Working Request – Making a Decision
- Supermarket Not Liable for Disgruntled Employee’s Data Breach
- Coronavirus – The Need to Adapt
- Furlough Leave More FAQs
- Furlough Leave Creates Alternative to Lay-Off
- Buying Time – Alternative to Redundancies
- HR in the Time of Coronavirus
- Music at Work
- Snowed Under – Getting to Work in Bad Weather
Employer’s Knowledge of Disability
In Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed an appeal by an employee against the original tribunal’s decision to reject her claim for disability related discrimination.
A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability; and A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
However, this does not apply if A can show that it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had a disability.
Ms Baldeh was employed by Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd (CHADD) as a support worker. She was dismissed at the end of her six-month probationary period because of her performance and behaviour towards her colleagues.
Ms Baldeh appealed against her dismissal. During the appeal hearing she raised the fact that she was suffering from depression, which could have influenced her behaviour towards her colleagues. Part of her argument was that she could respond in an aggressive way to others while suffering from a depressive episode. She also said that her depression could affect her short-term memory, which may have been relevant to the concerns about her performance. Despite this, her appeal was rejected.
Ms Baldeh submitted a claim to tribunal arguing, among other things, that she had been subjected to disability-related discrimination.
Her initial claim was unsuccessful. The tribunal concluded that CHADD did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that Ms Baldeh was disabled at the time of her dismissal.
But the EAT allowed her appeal against the tribunal’s judgment. It found that:
- whilst CHADD did not know about Ms Baldeh’s disability at the time of the dismissal, it had gained actual or constructive knowledge of it before it rejected her appeal (which formed part of the unfavourable treatment she was complaining of);
- there was some evidence that her depression caused the relevant behaviour which the Tribunal ought to have considered;
- it was enough for the “something arising in consequence” of the disability to have a “material influence” on the unfavourable treatment. The fact that there may have been other causes as well was not an answer to the claim; and
- the tribunal did not address the question as to whether Ms Baldeh’s dismissal was a proportionate response
The EAT remitted the case back to an employment tribunal for further consideration.
Section 15 Equalities Act 2010 requires knowledge of disability, but although an employee might not expressly disclose her disability, it might be difficult for an employer to argue that it could not reasonably have expected to know about it. Employers will be expected to do all they reasonably can to find out if a worker has a disability. If mental ill health is raised by an employee during formal proceedings employers should do their upmost to discover what the true medical position is. Employers will also then be expected to show tolerance and take an illness into account when judging an employee’s performance and conduct.
If you have HR queries and problems, get in touch!
Sign up for our free resources and free weekly tip - subscribe here.
Phone 0345 644 8955
LinkedIn Russell HR Consulting
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this blog, nothing herein should be construed as giving advice and no responsibility will be taken for inaccuracies or errors.
Copyright © 2019 all rights reserved. You may copy or distribute this blog as long as this copyright notice and full information about contacting the author are attached. The author is Kate Russell of Russell HR Consulting Ltd.