Reasonable adjustments

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

An employee in the case of Dominique v Toll Global Forwarding Ltd who was disabled was placed at a substantial disadvantage by the selection criteria in a redundancy exercise. The employee had previously suffered a stroke which had left him with physical and cognitive impairments. He was selected against three others in a redundancy exercise on criteria which he argued were subjective and did not take into account his restrictions in his arms and legs. He was dismissed as redundant and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. His claim for disability discrimination was that he suffered direct and indirect discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments both in respect of the choice of criteria and the scoring.

The Tribunal found no evidence of direct discrimination. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been disadvantaged by the inclusion of two of the criteria and the weighting of the scoring but found justification. It said that there had been no failure to make reasonable adjustments as these would not have changed the outcome.

The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred by focusing on the dismissal as the detriment and that it should have considered the question of detriment or disadvantage more generally. The receipt of lower scores was itself a disadvantage which making reasonable adjustments would have addressed. The EAT went onto say that it was difficult to see as a matter of practice how a disadvantage that could have been prevented by a reasonable adjustment (which has not been made) could in reality be justified.

The case is a useful reminder that employers should consider whether any reasonable adjustments are required in redundancy selection criteria to minimise any disadvantages that the disabled employee may suffer.

Written by
Edward Aston
24th September 2014