In the case of Leighton v Renfrewshire Council, the claimant worked in an autism support service. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he volunteered to help a disabled tenant move into temporary accommodation while repairs were carried out to the tenant's home. The assistance fell outside his normal duties but was approved by his manager.
Following the move, the tenant's psychologist made a complaint about the support provided, including allegations of a breach of confidentiality. While that complaint was investigated, the council temporarily moved the claimant to alternative duties to prevent further contact between him and the tenant.
The claimant brought a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010. He argued that helping the disabled tenant was a protected act and that his temporary redeployment amounted to unlawful victimisation.
The employment tribunal dismissed the claim. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The EAT agreed that the tribunal had made an error when considering whether the claimant had carried out a protected act. The tribunal had wrongly approached the issue by suggesting that not every interaction with a disabled person amounts to a protected act, when that was not the claimant's case. It should instead have considered whether the specific assistance provided was done for the purposes of, or in connection with, the Equality Act.
However, that error did not affect the outcome. The EAT held that the...
Noida's Labour Commissioner has dismissed viral fake news regarding a mandatory Diwali bonus, urging workers to ignore unverified social media claims and follow official channels to avoid legal tr...