A failure to make reasonable adjustments is a type of disability discrimination claim that individuals can bring against their employer. This is where an employer fails in its duty to provide suitable (or reasonable) adjustments to accommodate disabled employees at work. One of the ingredients is to show that there is a practice, criterion or provision (‘PCP’) that puts the disabled person at a particular disadvantage compared to those who are not disabled.
We look at a recent Court of Appeal case which looked at whether an expectation can count as a PCP.
Facts:
The claimant, Mr Carreras, worked for United First Partners Research (‘United First’) in October 2011. Upon starting his employment, he worked long hours (from 8.00am until around 11.00pm). In July 2012, Mr Carreras was involved in a cycling accident which affected him physically and emotionally. He returned to work in a few weeks, but experienced symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue and headaches. United First were aware of this and were content for him to tell them how long he felt able to work. He initially worked up to 8 hours per day, then gradually worked longer hours. From October 2013, United First asked Mr Carreras to work long hours. Although working these hours were difficult, Mr Carreras didn’t complain until February 2014, when he had an argument with one of the owners and then resigned.
Mr Carreras lodged a claim in the Employment Tribunal, accusing United First of ‘requiring’ him to work unsuitable hours. The tribunal found there was no discrimination because he was never ‘required’ to work in the evenings; this was only an expectation and therefore not a PCP. Mr Carreras appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), who allowed his appeal and found that the ‘expectation’ from United First constituted a PCP.
Decision
United First appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. They commented that a ‘requirement’ does not necessarily mean ‘coercion’, and that it may represent no more than a ‘strong form of request’.
The CA’s decision to loosen the law in this way means that employers must recognise the dangers of pressurising disabled employees at work, as this could give rise to a PCP that is discriminatory to disabled employees. The rationale in stating ‘no more than’ a strong form of request implies that a one-off request by an employer wouldn’t give rise to a PCP.
By Zahid Reza
Case report: United First Partners Research v Carreras [2018]
Image used under CC courtesy of bndF1