Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent failed to provide services to the claimant from May to December 2021 because of something arising from his disability (inability to speak English and limited ability to read/write). The claimant was profoundly deaf with BSL as first language. The tribunal found the respondent did not provide video interpretation or contact for seven months during lockdown, putting claimant in 'limbo', isolating him further during pandemic, and this was unfavourable treatment because of consequences of disability.
Allegations 3 and 4 (concerning failure to provide services from May to December 2021) succeeded. The PCP of requiring spoken/written English put claimant at substantial disadvantage. Reasonable adjustment would have been to provide video interpretation or other contact. Respondent had published in January 2021 that video BSL services were available but failed to provide these to claimant for seven months.
All indirect discrimination complaints were dismissed. Claimant's case was based on PCP of requirement for spoken and written English. Tribunal found respondent did provide interpretation services and did not apply the PCP to claimant in a way that put him at unjustified disadvantage, or where it did, reasonable adjustments case already succeeded and covered the same ground.
Facts
The claimant is profoundly deaf with BSL as his first language and limited written English. He attended Park Place Job Centre Plus in Leeds as a job seeker from 2015 onwards. In May 2021 during pandemic he was sent a letter inviting him to a telephone appointment which he could not use. For seven months until December 2021 he had no contact from job centre despite video BSL services being available and published. In 2022 when referred to IPES work programme there were further failures to provide BSL interpretation causing delays. The claimant made multiple complaints but received no written responses or investigations. In August 2022 a Disability Employment Adviser sent an email to multiple staff denigrating the claimant's character and advising 'firm' treatment, which the tribunal found to be victimisation.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent discriminated under section 15 Equality Act by failing to provide services May-December 2021 and failed to make reasonable adjustments by not providing video BSL or other contact during that period and again in July-October 2022. The tribunal also found failures to provide auxiliary aids (BSL interpretation) on specific occasions. One section 15 claim from 2017 was dismissed as out of time. Indirect discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal awarded £28,000 injury to feelings, £5,000 incorporated aggravated damages, £10,000 exemplary damages for the victimising email, and £6,880 interest. The pecuniary loss claim for lost employment was dismissed. The tribunal made recommendations for training.
Practical note
Employment service providers must ensure BSL provision is actually delivered to deaf service users, not just theoretically available, and failure to investigate discrimination complaints can give rise to aggravated damages and support inferences of further discrimination.
Award breakdown
Vento band: upper
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1802885/2022
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Job seeker
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister