November 10, 2025
The Claimant began her employment with the Defendant on 11th September 2023. She suffered from fibromyalgia and chronic migraines which led to frequent absences from work. Despite her health challenges, she contributed significantly to the Defendant’s businesses, particularly in update its client database, a critical function for the Defendant’s business of a regulated trust company.
On 31st July 2024, the Claimant was dismissed. The reason given by the Defendant was poor attendance and its impact on business continuity. The Claimant was placed on Garden Leave and her employment formally ended on 31st August 2024.
At the final hearing, the Defendant accepted that the Claimant was disabled. The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal also found as a matter of fact that by April 2024, the Defendant could reasonably have known of the Claimant’s disability.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s dismissal arose from her disability related absences and as such concluded that the decision to dismissal constituted indirect disability discrimination. Whilst the Tribunal did accept that the Defendant’s aim of maintaining business continuity could be regarded as a legitimate aim, it did not consider the Defendant’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. As the Tribunal had concluded that the decision to dismiss amounted to an act of discrimination under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013, it followed, that the Claimant’s dismissal was deemed to be automatically unfair pursuant to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
The Tribunal further found that the Defendant did not follow any formal process before dismissing the Claimant. The Defendant did not follow its own Absence Policy which required steps such as obtaining medical reports and implementing an attendance improvement programme. The Tribunal further found that the Defendant failed to explore or even implement reasonable adjustments, such as reduced hours or flexible working arrangements. The Tribunal noted that the directors of the Defendant lacked an understanding of their legal obligations under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.
The Tribunal ultimately awarded the Claimant, £3,600.00 which comprised £1,500.00 for hurt and distress and £2,100.00 for financial loss, representing lost wages due to the premature dismissal.
This case reinforces that employers must proactively assess whether any absences could be disability related, otherwise the employer is exposed to claims being lodged in the Tribunal. It further reinforces that employers must be aware of their legal obligations.
The Claimant began her employment with the Defendant on 11th September 2023. She suffered from fibromyalgia and chronic migraines which led to frequent absences from work. Despite her health challenges, she contributed significantly to the Defendant’s businesses, particularly in update its client database, a critical function for the Defendant’s business of a regulated trust company.
On 31st July 2024, the Claimant was dismissed. The reason given by the Defendant was poor attendance and its impact on business continuity. The Claimant was placed on Garden Leave and her employment formally ended on 31st August 2024.
At the final hearing, the Defendant accepted that the Claimant was disabled. The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal also found as a matter of fact that by April 2024, the Defendant could reasonably have known of the Claimant’s disability.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s dismissal arose from her disability related absences and as such concluded that the decision to dismissal constituted indirect disability discrimination. Whilst the Tribunal did accept that the Defendant’s aim of maintaining business continuity could be regarded as a legitimate aim, it did not consider the Defendant’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. As the Tribunal had concluded that the decision to dismiss amounted to an act of discrimination under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013, it followed, that the Claimant’s dismissal was deemed to be automatically unfair pursuant to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
The Tribunal further found that the Defendant did not follow any formal process before dismissing the Claimant. The Defendant did not follow its own Absence Policy which required steps such as obtaining medical reports and implementing an attendance improvement programme. The Tribunal further found that the Defendant failed to explore or even implement reasonable adjustments, such as reduced hours or flexible working arrangements. The Tribunal noted that the directors of the Defendant lacked an understanding of their legal obligations under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.
The Tribunal ultimately awarded the Claimant, £3,600.00 which comprised £1,500.00 for hurt and distress and £2,100.00 for financial loss, representing lost wages due to the premature dismissal.
This case reinforces that employers must proactively assess whether any absences could be disability related, otherwise the employer is exposed to claims being lodged in the Tribunal. It further reinforces that employers must be aware of their legal obligations.
The Claimant began her employment with the Defendant on 11th September 2023. She suffered from fibromyalgia and chronic migraines which led to frequent absences from work. Despite her health challenges, she contributed significantly to the Defendant’s businesses, particularly in update its client database, a critical function for the Defendant’s business of a regulated trust company.
On 31st July 2024, the Claimant was dismissed. The reason given by the Defendant was poor attendance and its impact on business continuity. The Claimant was placed on Garden Leave and her employment formally ended on 31st August 2024.
At the final hearing, the Defendant accepted that the Claimant was disabled. The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal also found as a matter of fact that by April 2024, the Defendant could reasonably have known of the Claimant’s disability.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s dismissal arose from her disability related absences and as such concluded that the decision to dismissal constituted indirect disability discrimination. Whilst the Tribunal did accept that the Defendant’s aim of maintaining business continuity could be regarded as a legitimate aim, it did not consider the Defendant’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. As the Tribunal had concluded that the decision to dismiss amounted to an act of discrimination under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013, it followed, that the Claimant’s dismissal was deemed to be automatically unfair pursuant to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
The Tribunal further found that the Defendant did not follow any formal process before dismissing the Claimant. The Defendant did not follow its own Absence Policy which required steps such as obtaining medical reports and implementing an attendance improvement programme. The Tribunal further found that the Defendant failed to explore or even implement reasonable adjustments, such as reduced hours or flexible working arrangements. The Tribunal noted that the directors of the Defendant lacked an understanding of their legal obligations under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.
The Tribunal ultimately awarded the Claimant, £3,600.00 which comprised £1,500.00 for hurt and distress and £2,100.00 for financial loss, representing lost wages due to the premature dismissal.
This case reinforces that employers must proactively assess whether any absences could be disability related, otherwise the employer is exposed to claims being lodged in the Tribunal. It further reinforces that employers must be aware of their legal obligations.
The Claimant began her employment with the Defendant on 11th September 2023. She suffered from fibromyalgia and chronic migraines which led to frequent absences from work. Despite her health challenges, she contributed significantly to the Defendant’s businesses, particularly in update its client database, a critical function for the Defendant’s business of a regulated trust company.
On 31st July 2024, the Claimant was dismissed. The reason given by the Defendant was poor attendance and its impact on business continuity. The Claimant was placed on Garden Leave and her employment formally ended on 31st August 2024.
At the final hearing, the Defendant accepted that the Claimant was disabled. The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal also found as a matter of fact that by April 2024, the Defendant could reasonably have known of the Claimant’s disability.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s dismissal arose from her disability related absences and as such concluded that the decision to dismissal constituted indirect disability discrimination. Whilst the Tribunal did accept that the Defendant’s aim of maintaining business continuity could be regarded as a legitimate aim, it did not consider the Defendant’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. As the Tribunal had concluded that the decision to dismiss amounted to an act of discrimination under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013, it followed, that the Claimant’s dismissal was deemed to be automatically unfair pursuant to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
The Tribunal further found that the Defendant did not follow any formal process before dismissing the Claimant. The Defendant did not follow its own Absence Policy which required steps such as obtaining medical reports and implementing an attendance improvement programme. The Tribunal further found that the Defendant failed to explore or even implement reasonable adjustments, such as reduced hours or flexible working arrangements. The Tribunal noted that the directors of the Defendant lacked an understanding of their legal obligations under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.
The Tribunal ultimately awarded the Claimant, £3,600.00 which comprised £1,500.00 for hurt and distress and £2,100.00 for financial loss, representing lost wages due to the premature dismissal.
This case reinforces that employers must proactively assess whether any absences could be disability related, otherwise the employer is exposed to claims being lodged in the Tribunal. It further reinforces that employers must be aware of their legal obligations.