Sacked for domestic abuse!

[Lindtballsrock]

So I have been shocked to find out that one of my friends has lost her job, because she is a victim of domestic abuse. Her partner is an awful human being, who goes through this cycle of being extremely physically abusive, and then convincing her not to leave him by being all apologetic and full of promises that it won't happen again. She has alluded also to him having made threats that if she leaves he will 'find her' and I think she is really scared of him.

She ended up telling her employer about the abusive relationship because she needed to request a specific day off (finally she has made contact with a domestic abuse charity and they can see her that day). Her employer said that he's really sorry but he doesn't want someone who 'gets involved in this kind of situation' working for his company, and he thinks that she will not be a reliable employee so he has given her notice to that she is being sacked in a month!

She's worked there for 7 months and had passed her probation no problems last month, but apparently she has no legal right to challenge the employer because employers are allowed to discriminate against you for reasons to do with domestic abuse.

AIBU to think this is crazy and that it shouldn't be allowed?

There are some things employers cannot discriminate against - like pregnancy, disability, race etc. I think domestic abuse should be included in that list. Since getting involved in my friends situation I have seen there is a petition to get this law changed, link below if anyone is interested. Apparently the government are consulting at the moment on how domestic abuse victims can be better supported at work so it seems like they do recognise there is a problem. I just hope something changes because this is awful.

www.change.org/Protect_domestic_abuse_survivors

I agree with those saying it’s likely to be indirect sex discrimination. Suggest she keeps a very detailed note of the meeting - as much as she can remember - time, place, what was said, facial expressions, how long it lasted, exactly what he said when she explained her situation. She can then decide if she’s got the energy to fight this.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

*So if someone is raped by a stranger they should face the sack?

Or if they are victim of stalking?

Why DV?

You don't chose to be a victim of DA.

Personally I'd think more of an employee who recognised they were a custom and took steps to change it. It shows straight if character.*

How did you arrive from my post to this, I will never know

Who said they should be sacked ffs. It shouldn't happen.

However, it also shouldn't be a protected characteristic.

Oh right. I think I may have misunderstood what you meant. Sorry.

@itsgettingweird happens to the the best of us. We are cool

I’m referring to the cuts to legal aid, early legal help

2012 The employment legislation changed an employee cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal if employed less than 2 years. The qualifying period to bring a claim for unfair dismissal increased from one to two years

2013 under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) access to legal aid became means tested
The scope & breadth of eligibility was decreased. This impacted upon claims related to employment,housing,welfare and employment. Benefits, debt and housing cases are also ineligible. Disproportionately affected poor & disadvantaged people
Solicitor Fees were cut too

Employment tribunal fees introduced 2013, Supreme Court ruling in July 2017 that the fee system was unlawful. 2020 There are suggestions that Employment Tribunal Fees May be reintroduced for tribunals, a barrier that will prejudice & dissuade claims

The two years employment thing is terrible. I did know about it and when I tell people they find it so hard to believe. But this is what people voted for!

Since it was introduced in 2012, if it's a surprise to anyone, then they might want to up their game when it comes to "democracy"

There's a very old saying from somewhere about not trusting the wolf to look after the lamb while you pray. Seems appropriate enough.

@SentientAndCognisant

I’m referring to the cuts to legal aid, early legal help

2012 The employment legislation changed an employee cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal if employed less than 2 years. The qualifying period to bring a claim for unfair dismissal increased from one to two years

2013 under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) access to legal aid became means tested
The scope & breadth of eligibility was decreased. This impacted upon claims related to employment,housing,welfare and employment. Benefits, debt and housing cases are also ineligible. Disproportionately affected poor & disadvantaged people
Solicitor Fees were cut too

Employment tribunal fees introduced 2013, Supreme Court ruling in July 2017 that the fee system was unlawful. 2020 There are suggestions that Employment Tribunal Fees May be reintroduced for tribunals, a barrier that will prejudice & dissuade claims

Thanks! I got bit lost in a thread

Employment tribunal fees introduced 2013, Supreme Court ruling in July 2017 that the fee system was unlawful. 2020 There are suggestions that Employment Tribunal Fees May be reintroduced for tribunals, a barrier that will prejudice & dissuade claims

That's the plan.

What is unfair is not necessarily illegal.
Don’t take or give advice unless suitably qualified in HR law

As I said I think Many people don’t know/don’t understand how Tory policy impacts

Probably the same people who all posted how heroic etc NHS is, clapped on a Thursday. And then probably didn’t know that the Agenfa for change pay deal eg Nurse, Physio, OT, SALT, HCA,porters, admin are all locked into a 3 year pay deal and for that reason got no pay rise this year.
No discretionary award, no additional recognition. In fact the square root of fuck all

Majority of those people who clapped on a Thursday didn’t then go on to email their MP, campaign or agitate for additional payment to reflect the arduous conditions & stress

A woman where I work applied for part time and was denied it. The employer declared that she had a right to request, but not a right to have. She took a very well-known case against the employer and won. The premise she won on was that she was applying for part time for child care reasons. As women are more likely to be the carers of children in the home, she was being indirectly discriminated against. I suspect that a decent lawyer could argue in this case that as the statistical majority of victims of domestic abuse are women, that your friend is being indirectly discriminated against and unfairly sacked. I would not be aiming to get her job back, but to sue the employer for compensation.

Majority of those people who clapped on a Thursday didn’t then go on to email their MP, campaign or agitate for additional payment to reflect the arduous conditions & stress

I've noticed in history anywhere in the world, if you want better rights and treatment, you have to be prepared to fight - and sometimes die - for it. Not sure a meaningless clap actually ticks any boxes in that regard.

@ProfessorSlocombe I don’t want to be an echo chamber, but I agree with all your posts

@SentientandCognisant. 100% agree the Tories screw every part of your life up. They have shafted the NHS for years and yes due to Agenda for Change which only really benefitted staff down the pay scales which is great for them but staff at top of pay band received very little. Next April we will get sod all as there is no money.
This poor woman is suffering twice, her dick of a husband and now her spineless employer shafting her due to Tory legislation.

Whether or not it could be construed as indirect sex discrimination depends on individual circumstances.

I'd suspect the conversation had more to it than your friend has reported though.

Surely this is sex discrimination. Women are far more likely tone the victims of domestic abuse.

Morally it’s shit and he doesn’t sound like a very sympathetic person.

On the other hand from his point of view, he will think that the abusive guy may cause issues for his business (carrying on outside, shouting etc...) and indirectly by causing the staff member to need to take time off that could have a negative impact.

He’s ignorant, because he sees it as her ‘choice’ to get in to a relationship with someone like that and to stay. He’ll wonder why she’s made a ‘bad decision’. He won’t realise how difficult it is for abuse victims to leave.

Again, ignorant!

@Disfordarkchocolate

Surely this is sex discrimination. Women are far more likely tone the victims of domestic abuse.

It may be indirect discrimination or it may not be. It really depends on a lot of things.

We don’t have enough information to make a call on it.

It’s definitely unfair, but whether it’s actionable is a matter for a solicitor.

Disability is a protected characteristic.

Mental health issues caused by trauma fall into the remit of disability.

She has completed her probation.

I would seek the advice of a solicitor.

@Imworthit

Disability is a protected characteristic.

Mental health issues caused by trauma fall into the remit of disability.

She has completed her probation.

I would seek the advice of a solicitor.

As already explained, she can’t retrospectively claim MH issues so severe as to amount to a disability.

Mental health issues caused by trauma fall into the remit of disability
No, it’s not that linear I’m afraid

@Imworthit

Disability is a protected characteristic.

Mental health issues caused by trauma fall into the remit of disability.

She has completed her probation.

I would seek the advice of a solicitor.

For it to be disability it would have to be serious and affecting day to day life and last at least certain time afaik. And as pps said. The retrospective claim is a no go in case like this.

Define mental health , define trauma, apply to the employee and try draw those discrete stands together to have a compelling case
It’s not simple

I’m afraid being aerated or aghast at what you perceive to be unfair, is not the same as having a case and basis to proceed

Unfair, doesn’t equal illegal
Esp not under the tories

As others are saying you can’t retrospectively cite disability
Plus it’d need to be evidenced and demonstrate the impact upon the individual

Your friend might wish to check household insurance policy as it often covers the cost of legal advice on employment issues