We provide the complete commercial debt recovery service; from outsourced early arrears collections through to expert litigation, all handled in-house by a multi-award-winning law firm.
We provide the complete commercial debt recovery service; from outsourced early arrears collections through to expert litigation, all handled in-house by a multi-award-winning law firm.
Case Study
In the case of Allen -v- Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was tasked with determining whether unconnected acts of discrimination linked by their factual setting, could be deemed as ‘conduct extending over a period,’ thus falling within the standard time limit for discrimination claims.
In this instance, the Trust initiated a restructuring process, resulting in the claimant being informed of the discontinuation of her position. Although offered an alternative role with reduced pay, she declined, yet was not made redundant. Subsequently, the claimant went on sick leave and was later dismissed due to her prolonged absences.
At the employment tribunal (ET), the claimant lodged various claims, including allegations of age and disability discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal.
Prior to her dismissal, the claimant’s manager had ticked a box on a referral form asking occupational health to comment if the claimant should be considered for ill health retirement. The tribunal determined this action constituted age discrimination. Additionally, it found that the Trust had pre-determined the outcome of a grievance filed by the claimant, also constituting age discrimination.
Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the claimant’s dismissal, which factored in her disability-related absences, constituted discrimination based on factors arising from her disability.
Case Study
The tribunal deemed the three incidents as fundamentally linked, stemming from the Trust’s restructuring, thereby granting jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
However, the EAT contested that the outcome of the claimant’s grievance did not amount to discrimination. The tribunal’s only basis for connecting the claimant’s age to the grievance process was the inclusion of age discrimination allegations. There was no use of ageist language, therefore the EAT concluded that the pre-judgment of the grievance did not inherently involve age discrimination. The EAT held that the tribunal had not identified anything that connected the prejudgment of the grievance to the claimant’s age.
Contact Us
For further information or advice in dealing with discrimination claims, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 126 or fill in the form below.
Related Services
Knowledge