Feeds

Dismissal of deaf developer was discrimination

Sign of the times

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Intelligent flash storage arrays

A profoundly deaf database developer, who sent email from a colleague's computer using remote access, has won an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination appeal brought by his employer.

He won because his employer failed to facilitate his involvement in the investigation and disciplinary process by not making reasonable adjustments for his disability at his disciplinary hearing.

The employee, Mr Taylor, is profoundly and prelingually deaf. He was not taught to sign at his school for the deaf and was instead taught to adapt to the hearing world by lip reading. He has no mother tongue and has acquired an understanding of English (both lip reading and reading of the written word) without ever having heard any language.

He held a BSc in civil engineering before his IT training, and took a job with OCS Group, a provider of business cleaning services, firstly as a payroll programmer and then as a database developer.

In September 2003, Mr Taylor received an email from a colleague, Ms Campbell. She asked for help with the database system, which Mr Taylor had helped to design. He immediately began work on the problem via remote access. But in doing so, he sent several emails from Ms Campbell's terminal to his own which were found not to be relevant to the work he was doing for Ms Campbell. Ms Campbell reported this to Mr Taylor's line manager. The nature of the emails has not been made public.

Mr Taylor was suspended shortly afterwards for his unauthorised access of Ms Campbell’s email account. Three days later an investigatory meeting took place with Taylor’s line manager, Ms Hellens, whom Taylor wrongly thought would be representing him.

After this meeting a disciplinary hearing took place with Mr Baccolini, the Communications Manager, whom Taylor found very hard to lip-read.

The case report notes that lip reading is an imprecise art and involves continuous guess work. The ability to lip read accurately depends on a number of factors such as the quality of the light, the ability of the person speaking to speak clearly and slowly and the familiarity of the subject matter, words used and speaker to the lip reader. It becomes even more difficult in stressful situations.

Nothing was written for Mr Taylor before or at the commencement of the hearing to explain that it was in fact a disciplinary hearing and, according to the Employment Tribunal, Mr Taylor did not participate effectively or understand what was happening. Yet at the end of the hearing, Mr Taylor was dismissed. The hearing had lasted 15-30 minutes. The Tribunal found that Mr Taylor understood the questions being asked when he provided the written answers; but he did not understand that he was dismissed.

Mr Taylor appealed internally. He tried to explain the matter was a misunderstanding and an over-reaction – and this time he asked for an interpreter.

An interpreter was provided by OCS – but only for two hours. After this time the hearing continued for another one-and-a-half hours during which time Mr Taylor's representative was also required to interpret for Mr Taylor. The hearing was by way of a review rather than a rehearing and the Appeal Chair subsequently confirmed the decision to dismiss.

Mr Taylor then took his case to an Employment Tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This time he was successful: the Employment Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was unfair and that OCS breached the Disability Discrimination Act in failing to make reasonable adjustments by providing an interpreter.

OCS appealed the ruling but on 23rd May, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision for Mr Taylor.

The EAT wrote: "His dismissal was for conduct, but the decision to dismiss was partly based on his failure to give an adequate explanation. That is a reason which relates to his disability”.

Copyright © 2005, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Related stories

Porn-surfing Norwegians awarded $40k
Waterstone's throws book at blogger
Pregnant employees treated like dirt
Bosses warned on employment 'myths'

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

More from The Register

next story
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
We know what the Doctor does, stop going on about it already
'Cowardly, venomous trolls' threatened with TWO-YEAR sentences for menacing posts
UK government: 'Taking a stand against a baying cyber-mob'
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.