In Secretary of State for Justice v Plaistow UKEAT/0016/20 and UKEAT/0085/20, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) upheld an employment tribunal's decision to calculate compensation for harassment and direct sexual orientation discrimination based on career-long loss
In Secretary of State for Justice v Plaistow UKEAT/0016/20 and UKEAT/0085/20, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) upheld an employment tribunal's decision to calculate compensation for harassment and direct sexual orientation discrimination based on career-long loss. Here, the EAT considered the Claimant’s conditions of PTSD, depression, symptoms of paranoia, as well as other functional impairments as conditions which were likely to be life-long. This case is a useful reminder to employers that under section 124 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) the calculation of compensation for discrimination is based on the loss the claimant has suffered and there is no upper limit of compensation. If a Tribunal views that an employee has been treated so badly that the injury was likely to be permanent, compensation may be justified up to retirement. As was the case here, the assessment of compensation encompasses some grade of speculation, as the tribunal must decide what would have happened in the absence of the discriminatory acts, so that the Claimant could be put in that financial situation. In carrying out that assessment, the weight to be given to the material available will be for the employment tribunal to decide and is inevitably case-specific. The EAT noted that Tribunals should ensure that they maintain a sense of proportion in terms of the overall award made.
The Claimant in 2003 commenced his employment with the HMP Feltham. In 2014, the Claimant’s request to transfer to HMP Woodhill was accepted. Unfortunately, post transfer, the Claimant was subjected to harassment related to sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Such acts continued throughout his employment. Due to the severity of conduct the Claimant was subjected to, in October 2014 he requested a transfer to a different prison. In October 2015 the Claimant raised a grievance, which was not investigated, despite further attempts to pursue these grievances. The Claimant suffered victimisation having complained about this treatment to his MP and was accordingly terminated due to purported gross misconduct in August 2016; aged 38.
The Claimant subsequently brought a number of claims, including direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
The Claimant was awarded compensation under various heads of claim, including £41,000 for injury to feelings, £15,000 for aggravated damages and £8,000 for exemplary damages. Having regard to medical evidence, the ET concluded that the financial loss award should be career loss. This career loss award was based on the ET accepting the Claimant’s evidence that he intended to remain employed by the prison service up to his retirement. The ET applied a 5% reflection to reflect the likelihood that the Claimant may be able to return to some form of future employment later in life and the possibility that the Claimant may have resigned shortly before retirement age. The Respondent’s failure to follow the ACAS code in relation to the Claimant’s dismissal further resulted in a 20% uplift in compensation.
The Respondent appealed against the ET’s Remedy Judgment on the basis that it had been wrong/had reached a perverse decision in awarding compensation on a career-loss and the 20% uplift and the ET’s failure to review the financial value of the award as a whole.
As a result of the discriminatory treatment the Claimant had suffered, it was common ground that the Claimant suffered moderate PTSD, depression and symptoms of paranoia, presenting with various functional impairments as a result (which included finding it difficult to leave his house on some days, or to attend to his personal care, or interact with members of the public, as well as experiencing low mood and sleep disturbance).
On the basis of the Claimant’s expert medical evidence, Lady HJ, sitting alone, had been entitled to find that the ET had permissibly found that the Claimant’s condition was likely to be life-long. Adopting the approach laid down in Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank  ICR 1290, the ET concluded that it was very unlikely that the Claimant would ever be able to return to any work; on the basis of the ET’s findings, it was entitled to find that this was one of those rare cases where it would be appropriate to consider the Claimant’s future losses on a career-long basis.
This was not a case where it could properly be questioned whether the ET had applied the correct legal principles. Given the dispute lied on prognosis as opposed to diagnosis, the Tribunal was wholly correct in resolving this dispute by favouring the expert evidence adduced by the Claimant.
Given its findings of fact, the ET had been entitled to apply only a 5% discount when assessing the likelihood of the Claimant choosing to leave his employment early or the possibility of his being able to return to some form of employment in the future. Nevertheless, the EAT accepted that the tribunal’s reasoning failed to display a more general consideration of the uncertainties involved in its predicted loss of earnings. There was nothing to suggest that it had allowed for the "more general vicissitudes of life" (the possibility of working life being cut short by reason of early death, disability or other unforeseen circumstances). The tribunal had therefore erred in failing to take those uncertainties into account when settling on 5% as a discount. The prison service's appeal was allowed on this limited basis.
In determining whether an uplift of 20% should be awarded in respect of the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Code, the ET had not demonstrated that it had considered the absolute value of the award it was thus making; that was an error of law (Acetrip Ltd v Dogra, unreported, EAT UKEAT 0016/20/VP UKEAT 0085/20/VP (18 March 2019), UKEAT/0238/18, and Banerjee v Royal Bank of Canada  ICR 359, EAT, followed). The ET’s reasoning needed to demonstrate that it had considered the totality of the award and that this was proportionate to the Respondent’s breach of the Code and to any harm suffered by the Claimant as a result (such that it was just and equitable to make an award of an uplift in that sum). The EAT remitted the questions of discount and uplift to the tribunal.
In Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank  IRLR 604 and Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (No 2)  IRLR 819, the Court of Appeal held that it will only be appropriate to award career-long loss in rare cases where there is no real prospect of an employee ever obtaining an equivalent job. The Claimant’s case here is a rare example of a Tribunal’s award of a career-long basis for assessment of financial loss. The ET described the Claimant’s treatment as a campaign of direct discrimination and harassment.
The aim of compensation for discrimination is to award a sum of money that will put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the wrong not taken place (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25; Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others  ICR 918). Given that there is no upper limit on compensation for discrimination, employment tribunals may sometimes be faced with the prospect of making an Acas Code adjustment that, in itself, amounts to a very large sum of money.
This case serves to remind employers that they should not forget the potentially significant implications of a failure to follow the Acas Code when an employee raises grievances complaining of discrimination, and when dismissing an employee in those circumstances.
The case also reminds tribunals that they should also maintain a sense of proportion in terms of the overall award made (Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others  ICR 918) and clearly set out their considerations in their judgment.
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited Judgement in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel relating to the correct calculation of statutory holiday pay for part year workers. This decision has implications for all part year workers on contracts which subsist all year round, whether their hours are normal or irregular.
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
In University of Dundee v Chakraborty, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a first draft of a grievance report could retrospectively be deemed to be privileged.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
The Government has published the Retained EU Revocation and Reform Bill which, if passed, provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” (i.e. UK statutory instruments which were introduced to implement EU law) and retained direct EU legislation on 31 December 2023, unless legislation is specifically introduced to save them.
On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. For those of you familiar with this case, you will know that it concerns the statutory leave requirements for part-time and part-year workers. For schools and academies whose workforce consists of a variety of types of part-time and part-year workers, this case is one that must be understood before any changes are applied. Come and join Emma Hughes, Head of HR Services as she puts questions to Ian Deakin, Employment Partner, and Sarah Linden, Senior Associate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the case of Mr Michael Cowie & Others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides a useful insight into favourable - or unfavourable - treatment in the context of discrimination claims.
This month, HM Treasury issued a consultation on Administrative Control Process for Public Sector Exits with draft guidance. They’re proposing to introduce an expanded approvals process for employee exits and special severance payments, and additional reporting requirements. If approved, the proposals will impact public sector bodies and those that do not have a specific right to make exit payments.
In Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to Covid-19 vaccines amounted to religious beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.