Introduction

Fareham College Corporation v. Walters ([2009] UKEAT 0396_08_1405) is a landmark case adjudicated by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on May 14, 2009. The case revolves around Susan Walters, an employee of Fareham College Corporation, who alleged disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract. The central issues encompassed the college's failure to make reasonable adjustments for Walters' disabilities, which allegedly led to her dismissal. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's (ET) decision, reinforcing critical legal principles regarding disability discrimination in employment law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal previously found in favor of Walters, confirming claims of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract. Walters contended that Fareham College failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities, leading to her unjust dismissal. The EAT upheld the ET's findings, dismissing Fareham College Corporation's appeals against the discrimination claims, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract. The crux of the decision emphasized the employer's obligation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to make reasonable adjustments, and the repercussions of failing to do so, which can include unlawful dismissal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key precedents shaping disability discrimination law:

• London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] IRLR 700: This case clarified the approach to identifying comparators in disability discrimination claims, distinguishing it from direct discrimination cases.
• Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] IRLR 20: Provided guidance on the elements necessary for reasonable adjustments claims, emphasizing the identification of provisions, comparators, and substantial disadvantages.
• Clark v Novocold Ltd [1999] ICR 951: Earlier case that the judgment referenced to highlight how discrimination claims have evolved post-DDA amendments.
• Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No:2) [2003] IRLR 102: Utilized for determining compensation bands for injury to feelings.

These precedents collectively underpin the EAT's emphasis on the duty of employers to make reasonable adjustments and the methodology for assessing discrimination claims.

Legal Reasoning

The EAT delved into several critical aspects:

• Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments: The Tribunal scrutinized whether Fareham College effectively identified and implemented necessary adjustments to accommodate Walters' disabilities. They concluded that the college failed to engage adequately, particularly in considering phased returns to work and exploring alternative roles that might have facilitated her continued employment.
• Comparator Analysis: While Walters' appeal raised concerns about the absence of a Malcolm comparator, the EAT found this inconsequential due to the intertwined nature of the discrimination claim and the dismissal. The Tribunal inferred that without reasonable adjustments, Walters was at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees, satisfying the comparator requirement implicitly.
• Unfair Dismissal: The dismissal was deemed unfair both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, the Tribunal identified a failure to conduct a thorough investigation and to consider all reasonable adjustments. Substantively, the dismissal was not within the "band of reasonable responses" given the lack of genuine exploration into accommodating Walters' disabilities.
• Breach of Contract: The Tribunal found that Fareham College breached the employment contract by preventing Walters from taking her entitled paid leave during her sickness absence, further compounding the discrimination claim.

The EAT affirmed that these findings were not perverse and were well-grounded in the evidential record, thus dismissing Fareham College's appeals.

Impact

The judgment reinforces the stringent obligations employers have under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Key implications include:

• Employers must proactively identify and implement adjustments to prevent discrimination.
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments can independently constitute unlawful dismissal.
• The approach to comparators in disability discrimination claims need not always involve explicit identification but can be inferred based on the discrimination's nature.
• Employment policies must clearly integrate disability discrimination considerations to guide fair treatment and procedural adherence.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment to assess employer compliance with disability discrimination laws, especially concerning the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the interplay between discrimination claims and dismissal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Adjustments

Under the DDA, employers are required to make "reasonable adjustments" to ensure that disabled employees are not at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. This can include modifying work schedules, adjusting duties, or providing specialized equipment.

Comparator

In discrimination claims, a "comparator" is a hypothetical or real non-disabled person in a similar situation to assess whether the disabled employee has been treated less favorably. This case illustrates that explicit identification of a comparator may not always be necessary if the disadvantage is clear.

Pervolity

A court decision is "perverse" if it is not based on reasonable judgment or logic, meaning no reasonable tribunal could have reached such a conclusion based on the evidence. In this case, the EAT found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision.

Polkey Deduction

Originating from Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, a Polkey deduction refers to the theoretical reduction in compensation for unfair dismissal if it is unlikely that the employee would have been dismissed had the discrimination not occurred. The Tribunal in this case deemed it inapplicable due to the direct link between the failure to make adjustments and the dismissal.

Conclusion

Fareham College Corporation v. Walters [2009] stands as a pivotal case in employment law, particularly in the realm of disability discrimination. The EAT's affirmation underscores the absolute necessity for employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. The judgment clarifies that failure to do so not only constitutes discrimination but can also independently justify claims of unfair dismissal. Additionally, the case provides clear guidance on the application of comparators in discrimination claims, simplifying the approach for future tribunals and courts. Employers are thus reminded to rigorously assess and implement necessary accommodations to foster equitable and legal workplaces.

The comprehensive analysis and reinforcement of existing legal principles in this case serve as a stern reminder to employers about their obligations under the DDA. It also offers valuable insights for legal practitioners and tribunals in handling similar cases, ensuring that disabled employees receive fair treatment and that discriminatory practices are aptly addressed.