• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Great Expectations: working late and disability discrimination

27th June 2016/in News /by Nicola Brown

The Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments in certain circumstances, including where a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with those who are not disabled. A PCP can include formal or informal policies, rules, practices, arrangements and even one-off decisions.

If the employer knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the disability, and that the disabled person is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage, the employer must take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage.

The recent case of Carreras v United First Partnership Research, considered whether an employer’s expectation or assumption that employees would work late could amount to a PCP.

The Facts

Mr Carreras was an analyst for United First Partnership Research (United). He took several weeks off work following a cycling accident however, after returning to work, he continued to be affected by dizziness, fatigue and headaches. He also experienced difficulty concentrating and working late.

Before the accident, Mr Carreras regularly worked from 8.00 – 9.00am until about 9.00 – 11.00pm. In the six months after he returned to work, he worked no more than eight hours a day. Then, he started working from 8.00am until 6.30 – 7.00pm. Subsequently, United requested that he work late and this became an assumption that he would work late on one or two nights per week. He would be asked which nights he would be working late, rather than being asked whether he was prepared to work any late nights at all.

Mr Carreras was concerned that he might be made redundant or lose his bonus if he did not work late, but eventually he raised his objections. In a heated exchange with one of the owners of the business, he was told that if he did not like it he could leave. He left the office. When he returned later that day to pack up his belongings, he told a member of staff in Human Resources that he found the business owner’s behaviour abusive and that he was resigning.

The Claims

Mr Carreras brought claims in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for disability discrimination (failure by his employer to make reasonable adjustments) and constructive dismissal.

Discrimination

Mr Carreras argued that United had applied a PCP – in this case, a requirement to work late – which put him at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled, and that United had failed to take reasonable steps (such as allowing him to work shorter hours) to avoid the disadvantage.

Despite accepting that Mr Carreras was disabled, that United knew of his disability, and that he had been placed at a disadvantage, the ET dismissed his claim. The ET found that Mr Carreras had not been forced to work late and therefore an expectation or assumption of working late was not the PCP he was relying on (i.e. a requirement to work late).

On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found the ET’s approach to the PCP overly technical and too narrow, and that an expectation or assumption of working late was sufficient to establish the PCP. The EAT remitted the case to the ET for it to consider the nature and extent of the disadvantage, and to assess the adjustments that it might have been reasonable for United to take.

Constructive Dismissal

Mr Carreras’s claim for constructive dismissal was rejected by the ET (you can find our previous article on constructive dismissal here). The EAT held that the ET had erred in its approach, by focusing on whether United’s actions were the only reason for Mr Carreras’s resignation. The correct approach is that the employer’s conduct only has to be a reason for the resignation, not the reason for it. The EAT found that Mr Carreras had been unfairly constructively dismissed.

What does this mean for employers?

  • Employers should consider the policies, rules, and practices they have in the workplace and whether they might be discriminatory, not only against disabled employees but whether they put others with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. For example, an assumption that employees will work late may be indirectly discriminatory against women (as women are still statistically more likely to take on a greater share of childcare responsibilities) or against those who, for example, observe religious practices at particular time/day.
  • It is important to note that an employer’s expectation on an employee to work late may amount to a PCP and, therefore, potentially give rise to the duty to make reasonable adjustments even where the employee has been willing to work those hours in the past.
  • If there is a practice of working late in the workplace, employers need to consider whether this may be in breach of the Working Time Regulations which set out workers’ entitlements to daily and weekly rest breaks, and the 48 hour working week limit. It is possible for workers to opt-out of the limit, however employers cannot force them to sign an opt-out or subject them to a detriment if they refuse to opt-out. Workers may also opt back in upon giving written notice (of up to a maximum period of 3 months).
  • Employers should be aware of the risks that an employee who has other reasons for leaving may still pursue a claim for constructive dismissal.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-06-27 13:03:492016-06-29 11:07:03Great Expectations: working late and disability discrimination

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Fire and rehire – what does it mean and is it lawful? 30th March 2021
  • Sleeping on the job – Sleep-in workers not entitled to National Minimum Wage 30th March 2021
  • Do your contracts need updating post lockdown? 30th March 2021
  • What are Vento bands and what are the latest rates? 30th March 2021
  • Tribunal rates and compensation limits from 6 April 2021 17th March 2021
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only