09-07-2010
Case Law Update: Disability Discrimination
Can the Effect on a Businesses Commercial Objectives be a Defence to Disability Discrimination?
Eagle Place Services Limited and Others v Rudd (Employment Appeal Tribunal)
The employee, Mr Rudd, was a personal injury litigation solicitor, employed by law firm Nabarro. Mr Rudd was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 having detached retinas in both eyes. Reasonable adjustments were agreed between the parties to enable him to continue working.
Mr Rudd was dismissed due to Nabarro’s believing that the financial effect of the agreed adjustments made Mr Rudd a commercial liability.
Mr Rudd brought proceedings for Direct Discrimination on the grounds of his disability and disability-related discrimination. The Tribunal held that he had been dismissed because Nabarro had considered that his disability had made him an inconvenient liability that would inhibit or damage its commercial objectives. It was found that Mr Rudd was able to perform his work perfectly well with the reasonable adjustments that were in place, therefore, there could be no disability-related discrimination claim.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that Mr Rudd’s dismissal was an act of unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of his disability. The comparator used by Mr Rudd was a lawyer of the same grade and skills as who had a similarly good relationship with the client and who required the same reasonable adjustments but was not disabled and whose commercial performance was not an issue. The Tribunal concluded that the comparator would not have been dismissed. Therefore, Mr Rudd had been treated differently on the grounds of his disability.
The matter was submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which agreed with the original Tribunal’s decisions. In particular, it held that Nabarro’s reason for dismissal, its supposed commercial effect was clearly related to the Claimant’s disability. It is not reasonable for an employer to agree reasonable adjustments and then dismiss the employee because it unreasonably considered that those adjustments made him a commercial liability.
Eagle Place Services Limited and Others v Rudd (Employment Appeal Tribunal)
The employee, Mr Rudd, was a personal injury litigation solicitor, employed by law firm Nabarro. Mr Rudd was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 having detached retinas in both eyes. Reasonable adjustments were agreed between the parties to enable him to continue working.
Mr Rudd was dismissed due to Nabarro’s believing that the financial effect of the agreed adjustments made Mr Rudd a commercial liability.
Mr Rudd brought proceedings for Direct Discrimination on the grounds of his disability and disability-related discrimination. The Tribunal held that he had been dismissed because Nabarro had considered that his disability had made him an inconvenient liability that would inhibit or damage its commercial objectives. It was found that Mr Rudd was able to perform his work perfectly well with the reasonable adjustments that were in place, therefore, there could be no disability-related discrimination claim.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that Mr Rudd’s dismissal was an act of unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of his disability. The comparator used by Mr Rudd was a lawyer of the same grade and skills as who had a similarly good relationship with the client and who required the same reasonable adjustments but was not disabled and whose commercial performance was not an issue. The Tribunal concluded that the comparator would not have been dismissed. Therefore, Mr Rudd had been treated differently on the grounds of his disability.
The matter was submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which agreed with the original Tribunal’s decisions. In particular, it held that Nabarro’s reason for dismissal, its supposed commercial effect was clearly related to the Claimant’s disability. It is not reasonable for an employer to agree reasonable adjustments and then dismiss the employee because it unreasonably considered that those adjustments made him a commercial liability.
