Dl Insurance Services Ltd v O’'Connor [2018] UKEAT 0230_17_2302 (23 February 2018)

Dl Insurance Services Ltd v O’'Connor [2018] UKEAT 0230_17_2302 (23 February 2018)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer failed to justify the written warning as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving attendance, as the employer relied on generalisations and failed to provide specific evidence or follow its own procedures (such as referring to Occupational Health), and the Tribunal's reasoning was adequate and not based solely on procedural failings.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0230_17_2302
Parties
Claimant: MS T James; Respondent: Respondent Employer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Justification Defence, Burden of Proof, Proportionality, Reasonable Adjustments
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Justification Defence Burden of Proof Proportionality Reasonable Adjustments

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MS T James

Claimant

Respondent Employer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's written warning for disability-related absences constituted discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the employer's actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred by focusing excessively on procedural failings rather than substantive justification

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer failed to justify the written warning as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving attendance, as the employer relied on generalisations and failed to provide specific evidence or follow its own procedures (such as referring to Occupational Health), and the Tribunal's reasoning was adequate and not based solely on procedural failings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed