In Kathleen Fortun v G4S Secure Solutions (Jersey) Limited, 1 the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (the Jersey Tribunal) found that the claimant was not treated less favourably than a non-disabled comparator and her complaint of direct discrimination failed.
The claimant was dissatisfied with the way her residential parking complaint was handled by the respondent, alleging that they refused to communicate with her by email and that they closed her complaint without resolving it and refused to engage with her any further.
The Jersey Tribunal determined that (i) the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (the Discrimination Law) and (ii) that the respondent did provide services to the claimant within the scope of the law (despite having no direct contract with the apartment residents) and that in providing those services, the respondent was obliged to act in a manner that is consistent with the Discrimination Law.
The Jersey Tribunal went on to consider whether the respondent had a duty to make a reasonable adjustment where a provision, criterion or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. The claimant asserted that the respondent wanted to speak to her on the phone which was not possible due to her hearing loss. However, the Jersey Tribunal found that there was no substantial disadvantage - the...
You don't have permission to access "http://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/insurance-fraud-investigation-south-carolina-sled/101-bcab3639-c001-419a-b312-1a252d5721c5" on this server. Reference #1...