Discrimination against the disabled now includes their family members

Last Updated: July 28, 2015By Mike SivierTags: age, associative, belief, carer, caring, civil partnership, disability, disabled, discrimination, employee, employer, employment, gender reassignment, marriage, maternity, pregnancy, race, religion, responsibilities, responsibility, sex, sexual orientation, tribunal

[Image: Slidesharecdn.com]

A healthy man was sacked from his job because he had caring responsibilities for a daughter with cystic fibrosis, a tribunal heard.

The employee – a Mr Truman – had indicated to Bibby Distribution Ltd that he would have to spend more time caring for his daughter because his wife, the primary carer, was starting her own business.

He was dismissed from his job on the day he reached one year’s service with the company, on the grounds that “his heart was not in the business” and his primary customer was dissatisfied with his work. Significantly, Mr Truman would have become entitled to unpaid ordinary parental leave after notching up one year’s service. His dismissal on the first anniversary of his employment meant that he was denied this right.

An employment tribunal found there was no satisfactory explanation for the dismissal. The primary customer had not indicated any issues with Mr Truman’s performance – nor had the company’s management.

As a result, the tribunal found that the employer committed associative disability discrimination and a remedy hearing was arranged.

Associative discrimination is the act of discriminating against an individual because of an association with another person who has a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The individual who brings an employment tribunal claim would not have the protected characteristic him or herself. A protected characteristic is a trait that the law has determined should not a basis for employment decisions, the equality Act 2010 lists protected characteristics as age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnerships; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation.

Carers need to be aware that employers may try to discriminate against them in this way.

Have they already suffered without knowing they are protected by the law?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

3 Comments

amnesiaclinic July 28, 2015 at 10:51 am - Reply

I wonder if this law is on the list to be repealed under Human Rights legislation??

I hope not. We have to ensure it isn’t. Thanks for drawing attention to it as most will be unaware it exists.
wildswimmerpete July 28, 2015 at 11:40 am - Reply

I know of someone who started at Bibby Edible Oils in Liverpool in 1971. He was there for a week before he was called into the office and given his cards – simply because after going through the results his company medical they found he had a history of depression. Sounds like there’s been no change in the group’s policies. Take a look here: http://www.bibbylinegroup.co.uk/about/our-values/
Poppy Hasted July 28, 2015 at 1:16 pm - Reply

This is the case law you need…. http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/coleman-v-attridge-law-stephen-law-c-30306