Secretary of State for Works & Pensions v Higgins, [2014] ICR 341
An employer's appeal was allowed against a tribunal’s decision that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for an administrative officer (the claimant) who was disabled due to a heart condition. The tribunal had also erred in its finding of unfair dismissal.
Key Principles:
For alleged breaches of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, tribunals should clearly identify:
The provision, criterion, or practice in question.
The comparative group of non-disabled persons.
The nature and extent of the disadvantage experienced by the disabled employee.
The potential reasonable steps the employer could have taken to prevent the disadvantage.
The provision, criterion, or practice should be the direct cause of the significant disadvantage.
Tribunals should refer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Employment when relevant. While they aren't obligated to address every factor in the Code, it's wise to directly address the factors they find pertinent.
Facts & Application: The claimant, an administrative officer with a heart condition, had been absent from work for six months. Upon his proposed return, a 13-week part-time plan was suggested by the employer. While the claimant requested a potential extension beyond these 13 weeks, the employer seemingly rejected this. When the claimant refused to return without an agreed-upon extension, he was dismissed.
The original employment tribunal deemed the employer's rejection of an extension beyond 13 weeks unreasonable, thus constituting a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also supported a claim of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, arguing no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant for refusing an unreasonable offer.
However, on appeal, it was decided the tribunal failed to appropriately identify the correct provision, criterion, or practice causing the disadvantage. They also didn’t ascertain if the proposed adjustment would effectively prevent the disadvantage. Additionally, regarding unfair dismissal, the tribunal inaccurately concluded the dismissal reason, failing to assess the employer’s reasoning.
In a pivotal Employment Appeal Tribunal case, an employer successfully appealed against findings of failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled administrative officer and unfair dismissal. Crucially, when alleging breaches under the Equality Act 2010, tribunals should clearly detail the provision, criterion, or practice and its direct causation of disadvantage. The case emphasizes the importance of precise reasoning in both reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal claims, and the relevance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Employment. This case provides valuable insights for individuals considering an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the Employment Tribunal.
