UK Woman Secures £330,000 Settlement Following Unjust Dismissal by Company on Day Off
A UK Woman Wins a Hefty Compensation After Unfair Dismissal
In an unprecedented win, a woman named Joanne Neil from the UK has received almost Rs 28 lakh (25,000 pounds) in compensation after being unfairly dismissed by her employers, Dermalogica UK. The Employment Tribunal, based in Croydon, South London, ruled that her termination was unethical and violated her labor rights.
The tribunal found that Ms. Neil was denied a fair opportunity to understand the redundancy process, as she was informed about her dismissal through a Microsoft Teams meeting where she couldn't ask questions. The short notice and misleading title of the meeting left her unprepared and blindsided.
The hearing took place on Ms. Neil's day off, with her manager and another executive present on the call. She was informed that she had been chosen for redundancy, which plunged her into a state of shock and despair, significantly affecting her mental health.
Notably, Ms. Neil managed to keep her job after another employee left the department. The court documents revealed that she was identified for redundancy in November 2022, just months after she had started struggling with her mental health in January 2022. She was not allowed to work from home the two days per week she needed, and her already weakened mental state led her to frequently break down in front of her colleagues.
The tribunal noted that Ms. Neil's dismissal was a form of indirect sex discrimination, as she was selected for redundancy on the basis of her hours, which violated part-time workers' regulations. Women are more likely to work part-time, making this selection criterion biased.
Key Legal Framework:- Indirect discrimination occurs when a neutral policy disproportionately harms individuals with a protected characteristic and cannot be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.- When using flexible working as a redundancy criterion, employers must exclude absences related to pregnancy/maternity, and avoid penalizing reduced hours or assuming lower commitment due to flexible arrangements, unless they can justify it as business survival necessity without less discriminatory alternatives.
If Joanne's case is any indication, employers should use measurable metrics rather than subjective judgments when designing redundancy criteria, and conduct impact assessments to ensure these criteria don't disproportionately affect protected groups. Keeping proper documentation to justify how the criteria align with operational needs and why less discriminatory alternatives were rejected is critical to avoid potential tribunal penalties.
- The Employment Tribunal in Croydon, South London, ruled that Neil's termination by Dermalogica UK was unethical and violated her labor rights, awarding her almost Rs 28 lakh (25,000 pounds) in compensation.
- The tribunal found that Neil was not given a fair opportunity to understand the redundancy process, as she was informed through a Microsoft Teams meeting where she couldn't ask questions.
- The hearing took place on Neil's day off, and the court documents revealed that she was identified for redundancy in November 2022, just months after she had started struggling with her mental health in January 2022.
- The tribunal noted that Neil's dismissal was a form of indirect sex discrimination, as she was selected for redundancy on the basis of her hours, which violated part-time workers' regulations.
- In light of Neil's case, it would be advantageous for employers to use measurable metrics rather than subjective judgments when designing redundancy criteria and to conduct impact assessments to ensure these criteria don't disproportionately affect protected groups. Proper documentation to justify how the criteria align with operational needs and why less discriminatory alternatives were rejected is crucial to avoid potential tribunal penalties.
