Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Employment Law / 114: Written warning for sickness absence was discrimination arising from disability

In DL Insurance Services Ltd v O’Connor, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that an employer had failed to justify giving a disabled employee a 12 month written warning for her sickness absences.

Under the Equality Act 2010, liability for discrimination arising from disability may arise where an employer treats a disabled employee unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, and the employer cannot justify the treatment by showing that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (Section 15).

Mrs O’Connor has a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. For several years, her absences had far exceeded the trigger points in the company’s sickness absence policy. No formal action had been taken, although she had been warned that further absences might lead to sanctions under the disciplinary policy. In the period April 2015 to March 2016, Mrs O’Connor had 65 days’ absence, largely related to her disability, which was six times over the trigger point under the disciplinary policy. This resulted in the company issuing her with a 12 month written warning, which also meant that her sick pay was suspended for 12 months. Mrs O’Connor brought a claim for disability arising from discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal found that the written warning had been imposed because of Mrs O’Connor’s disability-related sickness, and that it put her at risk of further disciplinary action and loss of pay for the duration of the warning. The warning therefore amounted to unfavourable treatment in consequence of her disability. This finding was not challenged in the EAT. In relation to justification, the Tribunal held that the company’s aims of ensuring adequate attendance levels and improving Mrs O’Connor’s attendance were legitimate. However, the company had failed to show that issuing the warning was a proportionate means of achieving those aims and had relied on generalisations about the impact of absences rather than justifying its conduct in relation to Mrs O’Connor’s particular case. For example, it had not followed its sickness absence policy by referring Mrs O’Connor to occupational health or obtaining medical advice.

The company’s appeal on the issue of justification was dismissed by the EAT, which confirmed the Tribunal’s reasoning. The EAT agreed that the employer had failed to explain how the 12 month warning would assist its aims of ensuring adequate attendance and improving Mrs O’Connor’s attendance, particularly given that it had accepted that her absences were genuine and could not have been avoided.

The EAT acknowledged in this case that the employer had, over many years, adopted a sympathetic and sensitive approach to Mrs O’Connor’s disability, and had allowed her to have much longer periods of absence than its sickness policy allowed. However, it was unable to produce sufficient evidence to show that issuing a written warning was proportionate. This illustrates the importance of considering the particular circumstances rather than relying on generalisations about absence, for example, by referring the employee to occupational health or medical advisers, and by assessing the impact of their absence on colleagues.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron