The Court of Appeal considered the above case relating to disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. In this case Ms Williams, who is blind, had been engaged by JWT as a Worldwide IT Developer. JWT were fully aware of her disability, her need for extra training and adequate equipment. However, on commencing employ in September 1999, Ms Williams found that JWT was ‘ill equipped to manage a blind employee’. During the next two years JWT failed to provide the equipment or training which Ms Williams required in order to carry out her job. JWT also failed to provide the applicant with suitable alternative work. Ms Williams eventually handed in her resignation in October 2001 stating that she had ‘found the whole thing a complete nightmare’ and she had been ‘left nowhere without any work to do.’
Ms Williams now claimed that she had been discriminated against by JWT on the grounds of her disability and this coupled with JWT’s failure to make reasonable adjustments led to her constructive dismissal. JWT contended that their actions in this matter were justified due to material and substantial reasons as in accordance with s5(1)(b) and s5(3) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, namely that the provision of training and equipment would be too costly. The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Williams claim for disability discrimination but this was later overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal ruled that inaccordance with Jones –v- Post Office [2001] the function of the employment tribunal, when adjudicating on an employer’s justification for the treatment of an employee, is to apply an objective test to the reason relied on by the employer. In this instance the court found that JWT had employed Ms Williams to do a specific job knowing that she would require training. However, JWT had failed to investigate either before or after her employment the cost and time that it would take to fully train an unsighted person for the job. She was not supplied with suitable equipment and was not given alternative work, she was simply left with nothing to do. The Court of Appeal, therefore, had to decide whether such treatment could be justified as material and substantial reasons. It concluded that given JWT’s prior knowledge and acceptance of the extra training and equipment which would be required, a proper assessment of her needs and the potential cost of same should have been carried out by JWT at the outset. The Court found that the detriment to Ms Williams occasioned by the discriminatory conduct led to her resignation in October 2001 and that her constructive unfair dismissal was itself a discriminatory act relating to her disability.