Search
Close this search box.

Proportionality of disability-related dismissal requires balancing exercise

The EAT’s decision in Department of Work and Pensions v Boyers is a reminder of how the law applies to objective justification in S.15 of the Equality Act 2010 claims where it is established that an employee was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his or her disability.
unfavourable

The EAT’s decision in Department of Work and Pensions v Boyers is a reminder of how the law applies to objective justification in S.15 of the Equality Act 2010 claims where it is established that an employee was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his or her disability. B is disabled and was dismissed when there was no foreseeable date for a return to work in the near future during a disability-related absence. The ET found that B had been unfavourably treated arising in consequence of her disability. The ET accepted that the DWP had two legitimate aims: protecting scarce public funds/resources and reducing the strain on other employees caused by B’s absence. However, the dismissal was not justified because it was not a proportionate means of achieving either aim, because of the way DWP had conducted the decision-making process leading to the dismissal. The EAT upheld DWP’s appeal.  The ET fell into error in basing its analysis of proportionality on the actions and thought-processes of DWP’s managers, rather than on a balancing of DWP’s needs, in the context of the accepted legitimate aims which had lead to the dismissal, and the discriminatory impact and then determining whether employer’s needs outweigh the discriminatory effect.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Rise in recruitment fraud must urgently be checked

28 March 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £32,332 to £38,205 pa, pro rata This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £29,605 to £33,966 pa, pro rata This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where

University of Oxford – Blavatnik School of GovernmentSalary: Grade 5: £28,759 – £33,966 per annum (with a discretionary range to £37,099) This provides summary information

Software Development Director (Exec Team Seat). Remote Working with Ellesmere Port Office-Based Minimum 1 Day Per Week. + Contribution towards membership fees. £120,000 – £140,000

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE