Comments are closed. Case round-upOn 28 Jan 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article This week’s case round-upAdditional compensationSingh v University Hospital NHS Trust EAT 1409/01 Singh, a hospital porter, was absent from work for an extended periodfollowing surgery. On his return to work, however, he had a number ofaltercations with his manager, which Singh believed to be racially motivated. Atribunal upheld his subsequent claim of race discrimination. When considering appropriate compensation, however, although the tribunalawarded Singh lost earnings and compensation for injury to feelings it declinedto award him additional, aggravated damages. The Employment Appeal Tribunalrejected his appeal, but clarified the principles upon which tribunals shouldrely when considering whether aggravated compensation is appropriate: – It can be appropriate in discrimination cases – It is only ever relevant where the discriminator has acted in ahigh-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner. Stress or injury to thevictim is not, of itself, sufficient – The tribunal will need to determine whether conduct meets the abovecriteria on the individual facts of the case – Aggravated compensation may be included in awards for injury to feelingsor be dealt with separately. It is not dictated by the level or category ofinjury to feelings awards – The award should be compensatory and not punitive Can a competitive interview be discrimitary?Archibald v Fife Council, EATS/0025/02 For a number of years, Archibald worked at the council as a road sweeper, agrade 1 position. Following surgery, however, she had mobility difficulties andwas deemed ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act1995. She could not continue in a road sweeper role. Despite having undertaken a number of administrative courses during hersickness absence, the alternative, sedentary posts for which Archibald putherself forward at the council, were all of higher grades. She also lackedrelevant clerical experience. As a result, after in excess of 100 internalapplications, Archibald had not secured an alternative position. Sheaccordingly brought a tribunal claim against the council alleging that, as adisabled person, the council failed to make reasonable adjustments for herdisability by subjecting her to competitive interview. Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, disagreed,however. While insisting that competitive interviews fell within an‘arrangement’ for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 andcould potentially be discriminatory, here it was not. All job applicants weresubjected to the same process. The council was justified in wanting to obtainthe best person for the relevant job and had approached the selection processin a fair and even-handed manner. Related posts:No related photos.