Mr H Awan v ICTS UK Ltd: 2200906/2015
| Judgment Date | 17 November 2017 |
| Citation | 2200906/2015 |
| Published date | 06 December 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 2200906/2015
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr H Awan
Respondent: ICTS UK Ltd
Heard at: London Central On: 25, 26 July 2017,
5 Oct 2017 and
17 Nov (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge H Grewal
Mrs H Bond and Mr D Pugh
Representation
Claimant: Ms N Cunningham, Counsel
Respondent: Mr J Davies, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1 The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded;
2 The complaint of disability discrimination is not well-founded.
3 The Claimant’s application for costs is refused.
Case No: 2200906/2015
2
REASONS
1 In a clam form presented on 10 March 2015 the Claimant complained of unfair
dismissal and disability discrimination.
The Issues
2 It was agreed at the outset of the hearing that the issues that we had to determine
were as follows.
Unfair Dismissal
2.1 It was not in dispute that the reason for the dismissal related to the Claimant’s
incapability to perform the work that he was employed to do.
2.2 Whether the Claimant was contractually entitled to Long Term Disability Benefit
(“LTDB”) at the time of his dismissal;
2.3 Whether his entitlement to LTDB would be assessed on the “own occupation test”
or some other test;
2.4 Whether it was an implied term of his contract that he would not be dismissed for
incapability while he was entitled to LTDB;
2.5 Whether in all the circumstances the Respondent acted reasonably or
unreasonably in treating the Claimant’s incapability as a sufficient reason for
dismissing him.
Disability discrimination
2.6 It was not in dispute that the Claimant was disabled at the material time by
reason of depression;
2.7 It was not in dispute that the Claimant was treated unfavourably (dismissed)
because of his long-term sickness absence, which was something that arose in
consequence of his disability;
2.8 Whether the Respondent had shown that dismissal was a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim.
The Law
3 The effect of section 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA
1996”) is that the onus is on the employer to establish a potentially fair reason for
dismissal and a reason relating to the capability of the employee to perform the job
that he was employed to do is a potentially fair reason. Section 98(4) ERA 1996
provides,
“Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the
determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having
regard to the reason shown by the employer) –
To continue reading
Request your trial