The claimant suffers from cystic fibrosis and, as such, it was accepted that he was a disabled person for the purposes of the EqA.I have gratefully drawn on its account for the following summary. The factual background is helpfully and succinctly set out by the EAT.The two issues which arise on the appeal concern (1) the proper construction of section 15(1)(a) and (2) the proper approach to determining whether a defence of justification has been made out under section 15(1)(b).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability." " 15 Discrimination arising from disability (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if- (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is no appeal by the claimant in relation to unfair dismissal. The respondent now appeals to this court in relation to the decision of the EAT in relation to the dismissal and section 15 EqA. The respondent's appeal in relation to the claim under section 15 EqA in respect of the dismissal and the claimant's appeal in relation to the ET's decision regarding unfair dismissal were both unanimously dismissed by the EAT (HHJ Eady QC, Mr Beynon and Mr Smith).This was on the basis that the findings made by the respondent and the sanction imposed fell within the range of reasonable responses open to it as employer: see British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell ICR 303. In particular, the ET unanimously found that the claimant's claim of breach of section 15 EqA in relation to his dismissal was made out whilst at the same time ruling, by a majority, that his claim of unfair dismissal based on section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 should be dismissed. The ET (Employment Judge Forrest, Mr Williamson and Mrs Richards) upheld some of these and dismissed others. The claimant brought a range of claims against the respondent in relation to his dismissal.Nor did it accept that expressions of regret and remorse by the claimant were sincere. The respondent did not accept that the showing of the film had been a result of an error of judgment brought on by stress. In the disciplinary proceedings, the claimant accepted that showing the film was inappropriate and maintained that it had happened as a result of an error of judgment on his part arising from the high level of stress he was under at the time in consequence of his disability.These resulted in his summary dismissal for gross misconduct. When the school learned about this, disciplinary charges were brought against the claimant. Nor did he obtain consent from the pupils' parents. He did not obtain approval for this from the school. Whilst subject to this high level of stress, the claimant showed a class of 15- year-olds an 18-rated horror film, entitled Halloween.He became very stressed under this increased pressure of work his health suffered badly and that in turn increased the level of stress, as he became worried not only about not coping at work but also that his health might be about to collapse and that he might need lung transplants. He was unable to absorb the increased pressure of work by working in his own time, by reason of the time-consuming exercise regime he has to pursue to keep his disease under control. The claimant's case is that he was subjected to an increased workload which he found he could not cope with. Unfortunately, no proper record was kept of the position and it was lost sight of when a new head teacher took over at the school. He was employed by the respondent with full knowledge of this and at the outset various reasonable adjustments were agreed to accommodate his disability. He suffers from a disability in the form of cystic fibrosis, a serious disease. The claimant was a teacher employed by the respondent.I will refer to the parties as the claimant and the respondent, as they were referred to below by the Employment Tribunal ("ET") and the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"). This case concerns a claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA") in relation to the dismissal of a teacher on grounds of gross misconduct.John Bowers QC and Sam Healy (instructed by City of York Council) for the Appellantīen Cooper QC and Angharad Davies (instructed by National Education Union) for the Respondent ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL City of York Council v Grosset EWCA Civ 1105 ()Įngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) DecisionsĮngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |