Hm Prison Service V Johnson
|
|
The appellant Prison Service appealed against a decision of the employment tribunal that it had discriminated against the respondent (J), who had been employed as a prison psychologist, for reasons relating to her disability. When J had started the job she told the Prison Service that she had two physical disabilities and she was provided with special equipment. From an early stage some of her colleagues, and a probation officer (H), allegedly bullied her, making hostile comments about her and her claim to be disabled. An investigation carried out by the Prison Service and, because of H’s involvement, the Probation Service, upheld the complaints against a prison employee and H, but found insufficient grounds for action against the other employees. The Probation Service did not discipline H or remove her from the prison where J worked, and the prison governor decided that it would jeopardise relations with the Probation Service if he excluded H against their wishes. J received two pieces of anonymous mail, an in-house magazine supporting minority ethnic groups and a prison leaflet about harassment, bullying and discrimination. J thought they were suspicious and raised the issue with management, who thought it was likely to have an innocent explanation. J then received a third item sent anonymously, a newspaper advertisement for disability aids, at which point management arranged for the monitoring of her post. No further such items were received. J’s employment was characterised by significant periods of sick leave, by her wish not to return to that prison, by her dissatisfaction with her treatment by management, and by the Prison Service’s concerns about her performance. Her mental health declined until it reached the point where it qualified as a disability. When she had been off work for around 10 months she was dismissed on the basis of medical advice that there was no prospect of her returning in the foreseeable future. She brought various claims to the employment tribunal, which found that the Prison Service had, by failing to exclude H, failed to take action to prevent further harassment following the internal investigation, and that was discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s. 3A(1). It further found that the Prison Service had failed to take appropriate and expeditious action about J’s mail, thereby exposing her to an act of harassment, which failure constituted a detriment under s. 4(2) and s. 5. The tribunal also held that the Prison Service had failed to consider or to make reasonable adjustments, principally by not finding J an alternative place of work, contrary to s. 4A, s. 3A and s. 18B, and that it had dismissed her for reasons relating to her disability that were not justified. The Prison Service submitted that (1) its decision not to exclude H from the prison could not have constituted disability discrimination because it had not been taken for a reason that related to J’s disability; More : telegraph.co.uk |