Key Case Update: November 2024
Duty of Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Workers
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently examined the duty of reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities in the case JMAR v Ca Na Negreta SA (C-631/22) [2024] IRLR 928, a case originating from Spain. The case involved a worker who suffered a workplace accident, leading to his permanent incapacity to perform his duties as a driver. Under Spanish law, the employer was permitted to dismiss the worker without any legal requirement to reassign him to a different role, despite his disability.
The CJEU was asked to consider whether EU law, specifically Article 5 of the Framework Employment Equality Directive (2000/78) and relevant international conventions, precludes national laws that allow such dismissals without first making reasonable adjustments or demonstrating that such adjustments would impose an excessive burden on the employer.
The CJEU clarified that the concept of “reasonable accommodation” mandates that, before dismissal, employers must explore the possibility of assigning a disabled worker to a different role for which they are qualified, unless doing so would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. In this case, the Spanish law allowing dismissal upon recognition of permanent disability without considering accommodations violated EU law. The Court concluded that national laws cannot permit dismissal due to disability without requiring employers to first attempt reasonable accommodations.
Implications for UK Disability Discrimination Law
This ruling may have implications for UK disability discrimination law. While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is not legally binding on UK tribunals, the CJEU’s decision could serve as persuasive guidance, as the UK remains a signatory to the CRPD. UK law on reasonable adjustments, however, is more focused on the specific actions employers should take. In earlier UK cases like British Gas Services Ltd v McCaull [2001] and Project Management Institute v Latif [2007], the courts emphasized that employers are not required to consider all possible adjustments. The CJEU’s ruling seems to go further, requiring employers to address reasonable accommodation as a first step before resorting to dismissal.
Indirect Associative Discrimination
In another key development, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reaffirmed that claims of indirect associative discrimination remain valid under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. This provision protects individuals who face discrimination due to their association with someone who has a protected characteristic, even if they do not possess that characteristic themselves. In British Airways plc v Rollett [2024] IRLR 891, the EAT confirmed that these protections applied even before the 2010 amendments to the Equality Act, aligning with previous EU rulings, such as the CHEZ case.
Compensation Reductions in Unfair Dismissal Cases
The case of N Notaro Homes Ltd v Keirle [2024] IRLR 875 examined whether a tribunal is obliged to reduce compensation in cases of unfair dismissal where the employee’s conduct contributed to their dismissal. The EAT held that while such findings often lead to a reduction in compensation, tribunals may, in rare cases, decide not to reduce awards if it would be unjust to do so, depending on the circumstances.
Costs in Employment Disputes
A number of EAT decisions also addressed costs in employment disputes. Under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, tribunals can issue cost orders if a party has acted unreasonably. In Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] IRLR 866, the EAT considered whether a refusal to engage in judicial mediation could be deemed unreasonable conduct warranting a costs award. The EAT ruled that, while participation in mediation is voluntary, a refusal could potentially be seen as unreasonable conduct, depending on the context.
In Carroll-Cliffe v Pembrey and Burry Port Town Council [2024] IRLR 882, the EAT looked at how tribunals should approach costs when some claims lack reasonable prospects of success. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision to award minimal costs despite the claimant’s success on some claims, emphasising that tribunals are best placed to assess the reasonableness of a party’s conduct throughout proceedings.
For more information on employment tribunal rules and costs, see the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013.