Disability discrimination & unfair dismissal

[greenpjs]

Is there anybody knowledgeable on here who could offer advice?

BIL was sacked today by a well known company in the UK. He has a disability which he did not directly disclose at the time of employment, however the owners of the company have known the family for years and knew about his condition previously. He has been sacked today as they claimed they didn't know he had health problems and the owner of the company said she had heard him complaining too many times about being in pain. To be honest they have treated him very badly over the past couple of years he has been there.

Where does he stand with this realistically? I'm absolutely disgusted that this company is so successful yet nobody knows what they are really like!

https://www.acas.org.uk/

How long has he worked there? What process did the employer go through to reach the dismissal?

Those questions are designed to understand whether he has a prospect of unfair dismissal.

Quite separately, "knowing the family" doesn't prove they know he has a disability, and that is assuming that he has a disability in law. A health condition and a disability are not the same thing. Can you evidence that it is a disability? Can you evidence they knew?

After that is the question as to whether, if his job was genuinely causing constant pain, what did he say / do about that, and what did they respond.

Having a disability, assuming he does, does not mean you cannot be dismissed. There simply isn't enough information here. I assume it's too much to think he was in a union?

Your employer doesn't have to know you have a disability for you to be covered under disability discrimination. The test is if the employer could reasonably be expected to know that you do. The family relationship could be entirely relevant in this instance

Ie you don't have to have explicitly told your employer for discrimination to apply

We have not established there is a disability. A health condition and disability are not the same thing.

they have a duty to make adjustments if they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, he has a disability.
So if he's complaining about being in pain, but hasn't said why, that comes under 'reaonably expected to know'.
If they went straight to dismissal rather than asking if he needed any adjustments, that's definite discrimination.
He needs legal advise.
@Neriah health conditions can meet the definition of disability - something that has lasted 12 months, likely to last 12 months, or rest of your life if under 12 months. Also if it affects your day to day life - anything from making a phone call, sending an email, walking a certain distance etc.
I work in the HR field.
edited to add - its a LEGAL definition not a medical definition. so how do YOU know its not the same thing? Only a court can tell you that. Hence my recommendation the person gets legal advice.

How long has he worked there?

makes zero difference in the case of disability discrimination. God the ignorance in the responses is astounding.

You also don't need medical 'evidence' to meet the definition, so asking if he can 'prove' it is inappropriate.

You kind of do need to be able to prove things if you're going to tribunal.

I suggest you read the actual posts. I outlined the two separate issues clearly. The ignorant responses don't make you an expert. And there is a huge difference between a health condition and a disability, or proving an employer knows there is a disability.

If you would like to ascertain legal facts on next to no pertinent information, that says a lot about your ignorance of the law.

What reason have they given for dismissal?

If they’re a national company it’s highly unlikely they have just told him he’s being dismissed because he’s complained about being in constant pain. There will have been a process, he will have had to have verbal warnings, written warnings, final written warnings unless gross misconduct could be proven.

I’m not saying that this isn’t discrimination. I have a disability myself and I’ve been there, but a solicitor is going to want t know the full ins and outs if they’re going to represent him. If there is evidence for instance that he has been approached over behaviour or his productivity or anything like that then a company may well be able to argue that the dismissal was fair.

People are absolutely discriminated against, but equally even someone with a disability can be shit enough at their. Job to be worthy of dismissal, and without any information it’s impossible for anyone here to judge.

Of course it does.

In the first two years a company can get rid of someone for any reason they see fit. So they wouldn’t have had to jump through hoops to do so.

If it’s been longer than two years then there will be a paper trail of events, meetings, warnings etc which may have led to the dismissal.

Hah, sorry, I just noticed that @thegruffalosmaw works in HR.

I am 40 years an active trade union rep with lots of tribunal experience, specifically working with equalities, and also my unions disability rep. I don't work for the employer. I work for the employees.

The OP can come to their own conclusions about knowledge, but anyone who says that no proof is required is not difficult to weed out.

If there is evidenced disability discrimation a claim can be brought under two years. To date that is far from clear, which is why I asked two sets of audios, not one.

If he intends to go to a tribunal then it would be necessary to prove that A, he did have a disability, and B, that the company were aware of the fact.

It’s highly unlikely that his manager has called him in and said “we’re sick of you complaining about being in pain, we’ve decided to terminate your contract,” OP says this is a large company, they will know the law, and they will be able to provide evidence as to why they have dismissed this person. And as such he is going to need to provide evidence that he has been discriminated against.

He has a rare condition which makes him disabled, there is plenty of evidence for this. There was no process, he's never even had a verbal or written warning, he was called into the office today and told they'd decided amongst themselves that they suggested he had his notice in. When he obviously said no, they said he was sacked. All a bit of a shambles really! This company is well known in its industry and has a huge social media following. But behind the scenes, this is how they teach people. It makes me so angry!

The company is family run, and to be honest I don't think it even has a proper HR department. BIL is young, needed work and took the job on the basis that he had known the family for a long time

@Neriah union rep here too (yes there are some of us in HR!)
Won tribunal case, very famous one on reasonable adjustments, probably one you refer to in your work even.
I sit on the national disabled members workers committe for my union.
You are incorrect in your advice and the fact you've done it for 40 years tells me you might be holding on to outdated approaches.
OP - speak to their union (ideally a senior official, not a local rep) or a lawyer.

I know this is hard to understand, but rare or not a condition does not make a disability.

It does sound like he may have an argument, but on this amount of information it would be idiotic to assert anything. Certainly, setting that aside, if he had more than 2 years employment, on the face of it that sounds like unfair dismissal. Assuming all your statements are correct.

So the next question is, will he fight it? It isn't your choice, and the fight isn't easy. I'm not suggesting he doesn't there, just issuing the warning. I'm inclined to fight over everything, but that isn't everyone's way. And your anger won't fuel his fight. Will he fight?

And he's not in a union?

Anyone can claim anything on an anonymous board. Who says that no proof is required for a court of law?

I'll leave it to the OP to decide on that one.

I asserted no opinions or facts. I asked a one line question.

If I was stood in front of you and I asked a similar, simple question - even if you felt it wasn't relevent - would you be so rude and and ill-mannered to my face? There is just no need for the tone. I'm a real-life person here.