Disability discrimination: reasonable adjustments: provision, criterion or practice
Provision, criterion or practice
Case Carreras v United First Partners Research (2016) Morning Star, July 15, Employment Appeal Tribunal
Facts C, an analyst employed by UFP, suffered a serious road accident and was disabled. He worked no more than 8 hours a day. The employer later required him to work late. He formally objected to this and resigned. He complained of disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments), relying on a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that he had been required to work late. The ET accepted that he was a disabled person and that the employer was aware of this. However, there was no requirement that he should work late, but simply an expectation. C appealed to the EAT.
Decision 1. The ET had taken an overly technical and unduly narrow view of the PCP. It should have adopted a real world view of what a requirement was in this context. There had clearly been an element of compulsion.
The case was remitted to the ET to decide the nature and effect of the disadvantage caused by the PCP of working later hours and the steps it might have been reasonable for the employer to take.
A PCP should be given a broad interpretation.