Birtenshaw v Oldfield UKEAT/0288/18/LA

Appeal against the ET’s decision upholding the Claimant’s claim of disability discrimination. Appeal dismissed.

The Claimant worked in the care sector for the Respondent, first on an agency basis and then she was offered a permanent position, subject to conditions including medical clearance. The Respondent was subject to the duties imposed by reg 32(3) Children's Homes (England) Regulations 2015 ("the Regulation"), which specifies that a person working at the children's home must be mentally and physically fit for the purposes of the work to be performed. An Occupational Health report raised concerns in respect of the Claimant's mental health condition, and the offer of the permanent position was withdrawn. The Claimant presented her claim of disability discrimination to the ET, which concluded that the withdrawal of the offer was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of complying with the Regulation. The Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET erred in its consideration of the question of proportionality, and that it had reached a perverse decision in finding that the Respondent had not satisfied the ET that further enquiries would have been futile and would have inevitably led to the withdrawal of the job offer.

The EAT held that the ET did not err in conducting the necessary objective balancing exercise, and there was no perversity in its conclusion.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2019/0288_18_1104.html

Published: 12/07/2019 20:26

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions

message