Automated Summary
Key Facts
Ms. M worked as a Health and Safety Consultant for AMC Safety Management Ltd on a zero hours contract from December 2019 until her dismissal in June 2020. She claimed she was discriminated against on grounds of disability (due to anxiety and depression) and sex (indirectly, as she believed the requirement for full-time work disadvantaged women with childcare responsibilities). The Employment Tribunal found the respondent had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of her disability, so the disability discrimination claims failed. The Tribunal also found that the requirement for full-time work was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim (meeting client needs for training and audits), so the indirect sex discrimination claim failed. The judgment was delivered on February 22, 2022.
Issues
- Tribunal determined if dismissal due to claimant's inability to work full-time hours constituted indirect sex discrimination. The respondent required staff to work full-time, which the claimant argued placed women at a disadvantage due to their greater childcare responsibilities. The Tribunal found this PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, so the claim failed.
- Tribunal assessed whether respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of claimant's mental health disability at relevant time. The claimant did not explicitly inform the respondent of her disability, and the Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent could reasonably have known about her disability based on her conduct or statements.
- Tribunal determined if claimant's mental health condition met the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant alleged she suffered from anxiety and depression, and the Tribunal considered whether she had a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Holdings
The Employment Tribunal dismissed both claims of disability and sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that the respondent had no actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability, and that the requirement for full-time work was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applied the 'on the balance of probabilities' standard, which is the standard used in employment tribunal cases to determine whether the claimant's disability claim was proven.
- The tribunal held that the burden of proof rests with the claimant to establish she meets the definition of disability under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, as established in Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4 EAT.
Precedent Name
- Goodwin v The Patent Office
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Mrs G Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on Definition of Disability
Judge Name
- L Grime
- Ian McFatridge
- R Henderson
Passage Text
- Given that the respondent had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability the claims of disability discrimination must therefore fail.
- The Tribunal considered carefully the Judgment in the case of Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2013] EQI.R 198. In that case the EAT stated that the statute should be given an interpretation that's in line with the intent behind it. Where a broad definition such as that of disability is adopted that requires a broad approach should be taken to what lies behind it. In that case the EAT suggested there was a need for Tribunals to be careful that the purpose of the statute was not defeated by an overemphasis upon the specificity of the label to be attached to a particular situation.
- At the end of the day the Tribunal accepted that the claimant did impose a provision, criteria or practice to the effect that workers would be required to work full time. They appeared to have applied this PCP in the case of the claimant and indeed a PCP that workers who cannot fulfil this requirement will be dismissed. We have found that this is potentially discriminatory because it does have a disparate impact on women rather than men because women tend to bear the burden of child rearing. We have however found that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim particularly in the context of a small employer who had no other work available which they could give the claimant which could be done on a part time basis. For this reason the claimant's claim of indirect sex discrimination fails. All of the claims are therefore dismissed.