[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_color=”#ffffff” custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header title=”Employment Law News” admin_label=”Fullwidth Header” _builder_version=”3.21.1″ title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”][/et_pb_fullwidth_header][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21.1″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]

NEW ACAS GUIDANCE ON NEURODIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Acas has published new guidance on handling neurodiversity in the workplace. Neurodiversity refers to different ways the brain can use and interpret information. This includes attention deficit disorder, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia etc.  The guidance explains what neurodiversity is and highlights the different types of neurodivergence as well as the unique difficulties they may bring. It also explains the importance of employers taking steps to support neurodiversity in the workplace. Employers should note that they may be obliged to treat certain types of neurodivergence as a disability and make necessary reasonable adjustments.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ remove_border=”off”][/et_pb_sidebar][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_color=”#ffffff” custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header title=”Employment Law News” admin_label=”Fullwidth Header” _builder_version=”3.21.1″ title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”][/et_pb_fullwidth_header][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21.1″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]

SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION COULD BE INFERRED WHEN GAY HEADTEACHER WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DURING A FLAWED DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

Mr Aplin was an openly gay headteacher at a primary school. He met two 17-year-old boys on the Grindr app and the three of them had consensual sex. The local authority investigated and found no criminal offence had taken place nor were there any child protection issues. However, the primary school conducted its own disciplinary investigation into whether:

1. The above conduct had brought the school into disrepute;
2. Whether Mr Aplin’s conduct outside of work had undermined his ability to fulfil his role; and
3. Whether he displayed a gross error of judgment such as to undermine the school’s confidence in him.

The investigating officer, Mr Gordon, found that child protection issues were, in fact, involved despite the local authority confirming that this was not the case. He provided various papers/evidence to the school governor panel, which Mr Aplin was not privy to, but which were connected to the local authority investigation. He took it upon himself to advise the panel, which was not his role, being a fact finder.

The school subsequently dismissed Mr Aplin who appealed the decision. During the appeal process, again, Mr Aplin was not provided with all of the evidence before the panel. He was also informed at a late stage that he could instruct a legal representative as the school was instructing a barrister. Mr Aplin, therefore, resigned claiming that flaws in the disciplinary process had amounted to constructive unfair dismissal.

Mr Aplin subsequently issued a claim in the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal’s finding of constructive dismissal. The tribunal had held that the entire process was so flawed that it constituted a breach of trust and confidence. It was also held that the investigating officer displayed a striking lack of objectivity in approach when presenting the evidence and this demonstrated unconscious bias. There was sufficient material for an inference of sexual orientation discrimination to be drawn.

The Governing Body of Tywyn Primary School v Aplin UKEAT/0298/17

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ remove_border=”off”][/et_pb_sidebar][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_color=”#ffffff” custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header title=”Employment Law News” admin_label=”Fullwidth Header” _builder_version=”3.21.1″ title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”][/et_pb_fullwidth_header][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21.1″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]

A DISABLED EMPLOYEE COULD NOT RELY ON HER MISTAKEN BELIEF ABOUT WHAT ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE

Ms Wood worked for iforce Ltd, a logistics company, at one of its warehouses packing items at a fixed workbench. She had osteoarthritis, a degenerative condition and a disability, which worsened in damp, cold weather. In 2016, the company changed its working practices so that Ms Wood would need to move between benches and “follow the work”, rather than stay at one bench throughout.

Ms Wood, however, refused to work at the end benches near the loading doors as she believed that it would be colder and damper there; hence, making her condition worse. Yet, following intensive investigations by iForce, it was found that there was no material difference in temperature, humidity or wind chill factor throughout the warehouse. The company concluded that Ms Wood’s refusal to follow instructions was unreasonable and issued her with a final written warning (downgraded on appeal to a written warning).

Ms Wood issued proceedings in the employment tribunal, complaining of disability discrimination. The EAT held that in order for her to succeed there had to be some causal connection between the refusal to work at benches near the loading doors and her disability. That connection had not been established. The tribunal had not found that that iForce was requiring Ms Wood to work in colder and damper conditions that might impact upon her disability. In fact, it had found that Ms Wood was mistaken in her belief of this. The tribunal’s reasoning had found no basis for finding a causal connection between Ms Woods’ disability and the erroneous belief that had led to her to refuse instructions.

iForce Ltd v Wood UKEAT/0167/18

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ remove_border=”off”][/et_pb_sidebar][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_color=”#ffffff” custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header title=”Employment Law News” admin_label=”Fullwidth Header” _builder_version=”3.21.1″ title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”][/et_pb_fullwidth_header][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21.1″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]

DISABLED EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED A DEDICATED PARKING SPACE

The Claimant, Ms Linsley, had ulcerative colitis, which is classified as a disability. The condition can make individuals need to go to the toilet urgently, flare up and be aggravated by stress.

Ms Linsley worked at the HMRC and drove to and from work in her own car. HMRC has a national policy on the use of its car parks. Priority is provided to staff who require a parking space as a reasonable adjustment, whether or not they are blue badge holders.

Throughout the years, Ms Linsley underwent various occupational health assessments that stated she would benefit from a dedicated parking space which she was provided with for a number of years at various HMRC sites since 2012. In November 2016, she moved to a new site in a different role and requested a dedicated parking space. However, instead, she was offered a parking space near the toilets if she failed to get a parking space near the building (and toilets) on a first come, first served basis. Alternatively, she could park in an unauthorised zone, incurring a small sanction which the employer would ensure would not apply to her, but she would also be required to move her vehicle later.

Ms Linsley was aggrieved that she did not receive a dedicated parking space and in early 2017 went off sick with stress. Reports from Occupational Health highlighted that stress was a trigger for her symptoms and as HMRC had not put in place the recommendations, this exacerbated her symptoms.

Ms Linley subsequently brought a claim for disability discrimination alleging that HMRC had failed to make reasonable adjustments. The EAT upheld her claim concluding that HMRC had failed to apply its own policy and it appeared that the relevant managers had acted in ignorance of it, which was not a good reason for failing to apply the policy. HMRC should have been aware that from around 2012 looking for a parking space was a source of stress. Employers are unlikely to be able to show that they have discharged their duty to make reasonable adjustments if they fail to follow their own policies unless they had a cogent reason for not doing so.

Mrs M Linsley v Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom: UKEAT/0150/18/JOJ

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ remove_border=”off”][/et_pb_sidebar][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]