Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd

Last updated

Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
DecidedSeptember 25, 2009;13 years ago (2009-09-25)
Citation(s)[2010] IRLR 486
Keywords
Disability discrimination

Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd [2010] IRLR 486 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning disability discrimination. [1]

Contents

Facts

Mr Rudd was a solicitor with detached retinas, and disabled within the meaning of the DDA 1995, working for law firm Nabarro as a senior associate, but employed by Eagle Place Services Ltd. Agreed adjustments to accommodate his disability were that some days he could work at home. This went well through a trial period. But eventually he was dismissed by the head of human resources, Ms Celia Staples, after he had allegedly asked for a raise to benefit from an insurance claim, threatened to sue for constructive dismissal otherwise and refused inspection of IT equipment at his house. The tribunal rejected Ms Celia Staples evidence as being unreliable, and found that on the contrary, the reason for dismissal was Nabarro was concerned about the cost of adjustments.

Nabarro appealed and contended the proper comparator was a lawyer of the same grade and skills who needed to work 2 days at home, and that such a person would not be dismissed. Running the “bastard defence”, Eagle Place Services acknowledged they acted unfairly but a hypothetical non-disabled comparator would have been treated no differently since, in large law firms, it was normal to manage dismissals by summarily dismissing highly paid employees, in the expectation that an amicable settlement would follow.

Judgment

Judge Serota QC dismissed Nabarro’s appeal and held that having made adjustments, it could not assert that it would dismiss a non-disabled comparator whose adjustments would create the same cost. The hypothetical comparator would not have been dismissed, following Malcolm v Lewisham LBC . [2] Moreover it would have been unreasonable to dismiss such a person, and so there was discrimination.

It is simply not open to the respondent to say that it has not discriminated against the claimant because it would have behaved unreasonably in dismissing the comparator. It is unreasonable to suppose that it in fact would have dismissed the comparator for what amounts to an irrational reason. It is one thing to find, as in Bahl, that a named individual has behaved unreasonably to both the claimant and named comparators; it is quite another to find that a corporate entity such as Nabarro or its service company would behave unreasonably to a hypothetical comparator when it had no good reason to do so.

Although unreasonable treatment in itself cannot give rise to an inference of discrimination, ‘where an employment tribunal has rejected an explanation on the part of the employer for what might be regarded as unreasonable behaviour it is perfectly proper for it to draw an inference of discrimination, assuming... there is other evidence pointing to discriminatory conduct.’

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Eagle Place Services Ltd & Ors v Rudd [2009] UKEAT 0497_08_2509 (25 September 2009)" . Retrieved 14 January 2012.
  2. ↑ [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 1 AC 1399 followed and Stockton on Tees BC v Aylott [2009] ICR 872 applied.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disability Discrimination Act 1995</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which has now been repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, except in Northern Ireland where the Act still applies. Formerly, it made it unlawful to discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport.

In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.

Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

<i>Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.

United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.

Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.

Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.

Paul v National Probation Service [2004] IRLR 190, [2003] UKEAT 0290_03_1311 is a UK labour law case, concerning the duty of an employer to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities.

Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32 is a UK labour law case, concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.

Lewisham LBC v Malcolm[2008] UKHL 43 was a case concerning disability discrimination and the application of equality legislation in the United Kingdom, relevant for UK labour law. It replaced the head of disability-related discrimination from the DDA 1995 with the Equality Act 2010 section 15 on discrimination arising from disability.

In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.

<i>Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary</i>

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11 is a UK labour law case concerning the appropriate test for determining who is a comparator.

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (1994) C-32/93 is a UK labour law and EU labour law case, concerning discrimination against a pregnant woman. It held that no comparator is necessary to establish discrimination against a pregnant woman. It was unusual in that Carole Louise Webb, the applicant, was represented throughout by a community law centre, the Hillingdon Legal Resource Centre (HLRC), later renamed the Hillingdon Law Centre, the only time that a British law centre case went to the European Court of Justice. The law centre's in-house barrister Michael Shrimpton argued the case before the Industrial Tribunal at London North in February 1988. He was also junior counsel to the late John Melville Williams QC in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and, by then in private practice, appeared at the compensation hearing in 1999. The case was one of the longest-running in British legal history.

The "comparator group" is an element that has been used in Canadian jurisprudence to analyze statutory human rights complaints and claims pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees equality rights and the right to be free from discrimination on certain enumerated grounds.

In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

<i>Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd</i>

Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd [2019] IRLR 322 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and discrimination.

<i>Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley</i>

Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10 is a UK labour law case, concerning equal pay and comparators.

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33 is a UK labour law case, concerning race discrimination and the burden of proof.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.