|
DDA RULING: ACTUALITY MATTERS NOT PERCEPTION
In Hinton v Copal Castings Limited the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that when considering whether an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments had arisen, the position should be judged on the employee’s actual condition, rather than what they and the employer believed at the time.
Mr Hinton had been diagnosed with diabetes which both he and his employer believed was type 1 diabetes, i.e. the type that requires regular insulin injections; close monitoring of blood sugar levels and also constitutes a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).
Mr Hinton was off work sick for a number of weeks and when the company enquired about his progress and forecasted return to work a request was submitted on his behalf that in light of his condition he be allowed to return on a part-time basis. The company said it was unable to accommodate his request and suggested he apply for voluntary redundancy instead. Shortly after this communication it became clear that Mr Hinton had type 2 diabetes rather than type 1, and type 2 does not constitute a disability under the DDA since no injections or special treatment is required. However, Mr Hinton heard nothing further from the company and two months later resigned his position. He then claimed constructive dismissal and disability discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld Mr Hinton’s claim on both counts. The company was duty bound under the DDA to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to his working arrangements and this might well have included allowing him to return to work on a part-time basis – the company’s failure in this respect constituted disability discrimination. Furthermore the ET found that the company’s suggestion of voluntary redundancy and its subsequent lack of communication with Mr Hinton had resulted in broken trust and confidence that amounted to constructive dismissal.
In appealing the decision the company argued that when considering whether the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose, the position should be judged on the true facts of the case, rather than what the parties believed at the time, and that by the time of the tribunal, the fact was that Mr Hinton did not have type 1 diabetes and therefore was not ‘disabled’ under the DDA.
The EAT agreed with the company in this regard – the EAT was clear that the DDA only applies to “a person who has a disability”. It overturned the ET’s ruling of disability discrimination but upheld its decision of constructive dismissal.
This ruling contradicts every other form of discrimination protection in the UK where individual perception dictates liability. It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds in future tribunals.
For advice on the DDA and making reasonable adjustments contact access@bravanark.co.uk
|