Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Lawrence v Legal & General Group Plc

Issues

1. Disability discrimination - unfair dismissal
2. No consultation process prior to dismissal on grounds of redundancy
3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments Award for injury to feelings.
4. Award for injury to feelings

Facts

The Applicant had worked for the Respondents since June 1995 when she was 17 and dismissed in March 2001 when she was 23 as a Sales Support Administrator.

She had in June 1998 been diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis and had to travel 50 miles each day from her mother's home in Leeds to work. She had a relapse in June 2000 and returned to work in October 2000 as a part-time worker working 3 days a week. She suffered another relapse at work at the end of December 2000 following which she never returned to work.

Due to internal restructuring it was decided to discontinue the employed sales force structure within the Respondent organisation with effect from March 2001 and consideration was given to the re-deployment of existing staff in that department. That staff included two full time persons, the Applicant who was part-time and two temporary workers.

There was a meeting to discuss this on 27th February 2001 but the Applicant did not attend. She did not receive the Memorandum calling the meeting as it was put in her pigeon hole rather than posted to her (she being on sick leave).

The Applicant received a letter on 28th February 2001 confirming the re-structuring and confirming her role would cease to exist with effect from the end of March 2001 and that a Respondent's representative would work closely to find other suitable roles for her. However apart from an initial telephone call she had made, there was no further contact with the Respondents until the Development Manager called at her home at the end of March to tell her that her contract was to be terminated on the basis of redundancy.

A letter on 29th March was sent to her confirming that no other roles had been found for her and formally giving her notice of redundancy.

This resulted in the Applicant's Union looking into whether she was a victim of disability discrimination and on account of a number of resignations that followed, there was a requirement for a half post which was subsequently offered to the Applicant as "suitable alternative employment". The letter also indicated that the notice of redundancy was withdrawn so there would be no break in her employment contract.

The Applicant rejected the offer and was paid to the end of July but did not receive a redundancy payment as the Respondents took the view that she had rejected an offer of suitable alternative employment and thereby resigned.

Decision

Both claims of Unfair Dismissal and Disability Discrimination were upheld.

The Tribunal found that the Respondents had discriminated against the Applicant under Part II of the Disability Discrimination Act 1985 and that she had been unfairly dismissed with effect from 31st March 2001 by the letter of 29th March.

There was no consultation with the Applicant and the Tribunal found that had she been consulted, she would probably have retained her part-time job. She was treated less favourably by being dismissed and also due to the fact that she could only work part-time on account of her disability. The arrangements made by the Respondent for consulting with her on redundancy therefore placed her at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who were not disabled since she was not at work due to her disability.

The Respondents should have made an appropriate adjustment and arranged for someone to visit her at home at the end of February 2001 to go through the consultation procedure. The Respondents furthermore were unaware of the "Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons (1996)".

In practice she had been selected from a pool of 5 persons in which the criteria adopted, the ability to work full-time, was applied. The Respondent did not make any reasonable adjustments to its administration support to take this into account, and make appropriate adjustments for a proper criteria to be applied in her case.

The Applicant was awarded £16,152.04 by way of compensation for disability discrimination which was broken down as follows:

Damages for personal injury
Exacerbation of pre-existing symptoms - £3,000.00
Pecuniary loss - £1,152.04
Injury to feelings - £12,000.00

Added to this were:
Compensation (basic award - £381.00
Loss of statutory industrial rights - £200.00
Interest - £892.34

Comments

This case goes to show the need for proper consultation and adjustment in the consultation procedure to be applied in disability discrimination cases and here there were several instances where the employers fell short of adopting the proper procedures or criteria vis a vis the Applicant.

The decision also shows how Awards in relation to Injury to Feelings are becoming significant and in this particular case, the Award reflected the considerable and prolonged injury to the Applicant over a period of months, of which she was still feeling the effects.