Mr P Chawla v Hewlett Packard Ltd

CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
JudgeMrs Justice Slade,Ms V Branney,Mr D G Smith
Date25 February 2015
SubjectDisability Discrimination,Harassment,Harassment - Purpose,Not landmark
Publication Date26 September 2017
Copyright 2015
Appeal No. UKEAT/0280/13/BA
UKEAT/0427/13/BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON, EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 7 & 8 October 2014
Judgment handed down on 25 February 2015
Before
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SLADE DBE
MS V BRANNEY
MR D G SMITH
MR P CHAWLA APPELLANT
HEWLETT PACKARD LTD RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0427/13/BA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MS ELAINE BANTON
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Cubism Law
116-118 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1PP
For the Respondent MR THOMAS CORDREY
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Kingsley Napley LLP
Knights Quarter
14 St John’s Lane
London
EC1M 4AJ
UKEAT/0427/13/BA
SUMMARY
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - Reasonable adjustments
HARASSMENT - Purpose
DIABILITY DISCRIMINATION - Compensation
The Claimant was disabled. The Respondent had a provision criterion or practice of shutting
down access to email and internet for employees on long-term sickness absence. The
Employment Tribunal held that this substantially disadvantaged the Claimant in that he was not
informed about important developments to his terms and conditions of employment and his
benefits. They held that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments in order to
communicate with the Claimant. The Employment Tribunal erred in failing to give reasons for
making no award for injury to feelings for failing to make reasonable adjustments which would
have enabled the Claimant to apply to join a Share Purchase Plan. Further, the Employment
Tribunal erred in not including in the calculation of the personal injury award in respect of
stress caused by the failure to make the reasonable adjustment of communicating information
about the exercise of share options in good time, the period spent in hospital for stress. The
Employment Appeal Tribunal increased the award.
Consideration of whether the Employment Tribunal erred in referring to the Respondent’s
motive when determining a harassment claim. Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
[2009] IRLR 336 applied. Observations on the 10% uplift in Simmons v Castle [2013] 1 WLR
1239 not applying to claims for injury to feelings in Employment Tribunals.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT