Harbinson v Hovis Ltd (disability direct discrimination Unauthorised Deduction of Wages) [2021] NIIT 22996_19it (01 June 2021)

Harbinson v Hovis Ltd (disability direct discrimination Unauthorised Deduction of Wages) [2021] NIIT 22996_19it (01 June 2021)

The tribunal found that the claimant was not directly discriminated against because the appropriate comparator—a non-disabled employee in similar circumstances—would have been treated the same way based on occupational health advice. The suspension and consideration of pay were not acts of less favourable treatment on grounds of disability. The respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, as all reasonable steps and redeployment options were considered, and the claimant continued to receive full pay. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not pursued and was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] NIIT 22996
Parties
Claimant: [Claimant's name not provided]; Respondent: [Respondent's name not provided]
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
01 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Burden of Proof, Comparators, Suspension From Work, Pay During Suspension
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Direct Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Burden of Proof Comparators Suspension From Work +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Claimant's name not provided]

Claimant

[Respondent's name not provided]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was directly discriminated against on grounds of disability by suspension from work
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments contrary to Section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered unauthorised deduction from wages

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant was not directly discriminated against because the appropriate comparator—a non-disabled employee in similar circumstances—would have been treated the same way based on occupational health advice. The suspension and consideration of pay were not acts of less favourable treatment on grounds of disability. The respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, as all reasonable steps and redeployment options were considered, and the claimant continued to receive full pay. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not pursued and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant’s claims of direct discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments are dismissed.
  • The claim of unauthorised deduction from wages is dismissed.