Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Discovery Employment Law
I am suing my former employer, firm of solicitors, for constructive dismissal and disability discrimation. We are at agreeing lists / discovery. I say they wanted rid of my team and made life unpleasant for me / us and I say I am disabled and should have been given a sit / stand desk. I left on 3 April they accept my disability from 26 March. This is not right, they knew from emails that I could not sit for long because of pain and knew I take painkillers every day in order to be able to work. Other people in the firm were given sit / stand desks , I was not. I do not know if those others are disabled or not. Do I need to ask for proof that the people who were given desks were disabled? Does it matter? Thanks
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dredmil. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You need to show:
(a) that you meet the definition of 'disabled', as defined by the Equality Act 2010. (If you can't prove that you're 'disabled' then you've no chance of winning your case)
https:/
(b) that the employer failed to make 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that you weren't seriously disadvantaged at work
https:/
What the employer did, or didn't do, for other employees (such as providing particular types of desks) is completely irrelevant and you should steer well clear of relying upon such actions (or inactions) to support your case.
(a) that you meet the definition of 'disabled', as defined by the Equality Act 2010. (If you can't prove that you're 'disabled' then you've no chance of winning your case)
https:/
(b) that the employer failed to make 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that you weren't seriously disadvantaged at work
https:/
What the employer did, or didn't do, for other employees (such as providing particular types of desks) is completely irrelevant and you should steer well clear of relying upon such actions (or inactions) to support your case.
Excellent advice from Buenchico. I would just add that in my opinion trying to sue a solicitor over something as vague as 'inappropriate provision for disability' which lead to dismissal is a sure fire way to lose a lot of money!.
If your knowledge of the law is at a level where you have to ask advice on an on-line forum what hope do you have against a firm of solicitors ?
Have you actually been registered as disabled? It worries me that your post says ''I say I am disabled''. Your opinion is not enough , you have to be officially recognised as disabled. Do you get disabled living allowance for example? That would show that you have a recognised disability which an employer would have to take into consideration.
At the moment your problem looks like just an argument over the type of desk you were given.
If your knowledge of the law is at a level where you have to ask advice on an on-line forum what hope do you have against a firm of solicitors ?
Have you actually been registered as disabled? It worries me that your post says ''I say I am disabled''. Your opinion is not enough , you have to be officially recognised as disabled. Do you get disabled living allowance for example? That would show that you have a recognised disability which an employer would have to take into consideration.
At the moment your problem looks like just an argument over the type of desk you were given.
Good Luck in your case
I am not sure if it appropriate ( in the old sense ) for someone to say a la Groucho Marx - if you're asking our advice it is a sure sign you should be asking someone else.
I imagine that you are conducting your own case and I think in the Emplyment tribunals each side finds their own costs
If they accept your disablility 26 March then I think you can take it you are disabled and just argue about the date they should have recognised it ( presumably you dont fall over or something in between )
constructive dismissal is a fertile source of case law
I am not sure if it appropriate ( in the old sense ) for someone to say a la Groucho Marx - if you're asking our advice it is a sure sign you should be asking someone else.
I imagine that you are conducting your own case and I think in the Emplyment tribunals each side finds their own costs
If they accept your disablility 26 March then I think you can take it you are disabled and just argue about the date they should have recognised it ( presumably you dont fall over or something in between )
constructive dismissal is a fertile source of case law
The definition is disabled for the purposes of the 2010 Act is: -
‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’
(I'm sure the above responders know that , as does the OP, I'm just setting a reference point).
The trouble with this is the weasel-words 'substantial' and 'long-term'. A fruitful source of inspiration for lawyers to argue all day long, no doubt.
There are a few conditions under the Act, where it seems one is 'covered' and automatically regarded as disabled under the Act - a medical diagnosis for cancer, multiple sclerosis or HIV. But so many conditions are progressive or fluctuating, and if you have one of these, than it is less clear cut. Do you have one of the 'I'm covered' conditions?
I'm wondering what happened on 26 March - did you finally receive a letter from your employer saying 'yes, we acknowledge you are defined as disabled under the Act' and also whether it said anything else?
There are then 8 days until 3rd April, when you presumably resigned, claiming constructive dismissal - hardly very long for even a recalcitrant employer who has had to be led by the nose to finally conceding your condition under the Act, to be telling you what adjustments it would be willing to make.
Not saying you are right or wrong, just considering the employer's potential wriggle room. They may claim you jumped ship from an unhappy employment, once you thought you were home and dry on an unfair dismissal claim.
‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’
(I'm sure the above responders know that , as does the OP, I'm just setting a reference point).
The trouble with this is the weasel-words 'substantial' and 'long-term'. A fruitful source of inspiration for lawyers to argue all day long, no doubt.
There are a few conditions under the Act, where it seems one is 'covered' and automatically regarded as disabled under the Act - a medical diagnosis for cancer, multiple sclerosis or HIV. But so many conditions are progressive or fluctuating, and if you have one of these, than it is less clear cut. Do you have one of the 'I'm covered' conditions?
I'm wondering what happened on 26 March - did you finally receive a letter from your employer saying 'yes, we acknowledge you are defined as disabled under the Act' and also whether it said anything else?
There are then 8 days until 3rd April, when you presumably resigned, claiming constructive dismissal - hardly very long for even a recalcitrant employer who has had to be led by the nose to finally conceding your condition under the Act, to be telling you what adjustments it would be willing to make.
Not saying you are right or wrong, just considering the employer's potential wriggle room. They may claim you jumped ship from an unhappy employment, once you thought you were home and dry on an unfair dismissal claim.
1 to 6 of 6
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.