In Britain, Mrs C Carrabyne received over £ 110,000 for compensation in the case, which was concluded in 2016, due to discrimination against her disability.
Mrs C Carrabyne, who had problems with her hip and had depression problems, started to work as a part of a team of 15 people in July 2012 for DWP. After she started working, DWP (The Department for Work and Pensions) took a series of measures at work to improve her working conditions.
Mrs C Carrabyne had a total of 14 days off during the first 1 year trial period. This period, which was applied as 8 days for everyone else, was applied to Mrs C Carrabyne as 14 days, with an additional 6 days due to his disability.
Mrs C Carrabyne was absent from her duty for a period of 6 months in 2014 and 2015, due to the facts that she had operations on her hip, depression and gastric flu.
The first written warning was given her on 12 January 2015. Mrs C Carrabyne objected to this warning, however, her appeal was not accepted. The review period for this warning was up to 9 August 2015.
Mrs C Carrabyne’s health status report, published on 25 January 2016, stated that she had been treated for depression for a long time. It was also stated that this treatment was supported by drugs. In addition, this report also stated that she had hip pain that restricts her movements throughout the day.
Mrs C Carrabyne continued to work after this report. In addition, the last written notice was given to her on 28 July 2015. The review period of this written notice ended on January 25, 2016.
In January 2016, the report on Mrs C Carrabyne told the administration that her absenteeism had become permanent, her health was not improving, and that her condition was unfit to continue, leaving no preference to solve the situation. In this report, it was stated that a final written notice was given to her and that the evaluation process for the written notice was still continuing.
Although the board was convinced that her complaints were true, they dismissed her as long as it was impossible to proceed in her situation. Mrs C Carrabyne objected to this decision as well, but this appeal also was not accepted.
Mrs C Carrabyne carried the matter to the Employment Tribunal, thinking that she had been discriminated against because of her disability. Mrs C Carradyne, here, claimed that the disability-related arrangements were not made and there was wrongful dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal accepted Mrs Carrabyne’s allegations on the ground that she had been discriminated against (see section 15 Equality Act 2010), that she had not made reasonable arrangements (see section 20 Equality Act 2010) and that she had been unfairly dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal decided that DWP, a large organization with large resources, was potentially justifiable, but given the measures to be taken in this case, the most reasonable solution should not be dismissing her.
During investigations at the court, the DWP admitted that Mrs Carrabyne’s dismissal was undesirable and that this was something that arose from disability. The court considered that it was not appropriate to issue a dismiss decision for Mrs C Carrabyne, which meant discrimination. Here, it was effective in this court’s decision that the team she was working with was not affected by the situation.
Moreover, the Employment Court considered that the DWP had not made the necessary arrangements for Mrs C Carrabyne. What was expected from the company was the necessary adjustments to the absenteeism policy. The Court found that if such an arrangement had been made, it would have contributed to the dissolution of the matter.
As a decision, the court decided to pay a sum of over 110,000 Pounds in total, including loss of status, loss of hold and loss of future earnings and non-pecuniary damage. These kinds of cases show why it’s so important to hire a Personal Injury Lawyer in Toronto to ensure that you don’t suffer from cases like this.
This decision, with the penalty given to the company giving the dismissal decision for Mrs C Carrabyne with physical problems, is a guide for other companies to see such practices as a last resort and to make the necessary arrangements for the personnel who need it.