Discrimination, temporarily gone

Text details temporarily removed.

Parents
  • It would help to have more information about this. In which city will the hearing be held, for example?

    This is hugely relevant for me since I am on my way to trying to prove in the Employment Tribunal that I'm disabled and that my employer should have known about it.

    I find it amazing that I had to endure several colleagues punishing me and making fun of me because of my autistic traits, and now the employer is saying that I should not be protected because they claim that I'm not disabled, which would essentially make all the mistreatment ok, even though they mistreated me specifically because of my condition.

    I just wish that they would add neurodiversity to the list of protected characteristics, instead of including it within disability, thereby failing to protect people on the spectrum who don't quite fit the definition of disabled. The House of Lords put out a report suggesting this: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeqact/117/117.pdf (paragraph 57)

    There's a reason why people on the spectrum have the largest unemployment rate out of all disabled people. Something needs to be done about all the bullying and unfair treatment. Employers shouldn't be allowed to seek the easy way out by claiming someone isn't disabled.

    Please post here about the progress of the hearing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will follow it with great interest.

  • Employers will always try and claim that you aren’t disabled in this sort of scenario, because if it is proved it immediately makes a claim of disability discrimination unviable.

    As far as I can tell though, given the very traits that are required for a diagnosis of Autism, anyone who is autistic would meet the criteria for a disability under the Equality Act. I certainly had no problem proving to the Employment Tribunal my Asperger’s, depression and anxiety were all disabilities, despite my employer initially arguing that the latter two were not. Therefore, could you possibly explain who on the spectrum you think don’t quite fit the current definition of disability (I just want to understand and help you if I can)?

Reply
  • Employers will always try and claim that you aren’t disabled in this sort of scenario, because if it is proved it immediately makes a claim of disability discrimination unviable.

    As far as I can tell though, given the very traits that are required for a diagnosis of Autism, anyone who is autistic would meet the criteria for a disability under the Equality Act. I certainly had no problem proving to the Employment Tribunal my Asperger’s, depression and anxiety were all disabilities, despite my employer initially arguing that the latter two were not. Therefore, could you possibly explain who on the spectrum you think don’t quite fit the current definition of disability (I just want to understand and help you if I can)?

Children
  • The Tribunal did stay my claim, but I’m not sure why they bothered given their recent ruling that my claim can’t be reinstated due to a settlement agreement existing.

  • But then again, had not the tribunal paused it to start with? That means it was promised to be taken up again if something went wrong with the agreement, right? 

  • Ok, so in simple words: They claim for you to pay because you wanted to reinstate an old claim, but it was denied. So the fact that the tribunal denied it, makes it ok for the respondents to claim money from you?

  • There is no way I can defend this sort of matter myself - I firstly do not have the time, secondly I’m not currently well enough, and thirdly the matter is extremely legally complex due to a number of nuances. If it was a case of presenting the original claims that would be fine, but it’s not and far more is to be considered which is demonstrated by the fact that both parties instructed barristers in this matter - it’s too much for even experienced solicitors.

    If an agreement is breached you’re supposed to claim breach of contract in the civil courts, but I instead asked for reinstatement of my claim in the Employment Tribunals (because I either wanted my claims to go through a full hearing or to get exactly what was agreed in the settlement, neither of which I would get through a breach of contract claim).

    My claim wasn’t reinstated, the Tribunal struck it out because of the existence of the settlement agreement (they don’t care it has been breached - that’s a civil court matter). As such, my employer is arguing that I should have to pay their costs in defending my application for reinstatement (which isn’t all the costs they have incurred throughout the case), and they have a good argument given the judgement going in their favour.

  • Maybe you can defend it by yourself from now? The struggling should be over, I mean finding proof and so. If you represent yourself you wont have more costs... 

    But I can't really make out what you wrote up there as the reason for their claim. You reinstated your claim, because they refused a part of the settlement. And because you reinstated it, then you have suddenly done something wrong? What can that possibly be?

  • I see exactly what you mean Mandy. Though to be fair, the terms of my agreement are very clear (even the Employment Tribunal Judge said so), it’s just that my former employer is being an idiot and pretending they aren’t.

    They are making the application on the basis that my claim had no reasonable prospect of success in light of the settlement agreement. Basically this has nothing to do with who breached the agreement (that’s a civil court matter), but because I asked the Employment Tribunal to reinstate my claim due to the refusal of my employer to comply with the agreement. That action they are arguing had no reasonable prospects of success, and in light of the recent judgement they’ve got a good argument.

    Sadly I’m not sure anyone can really help me in this situation. As I say, if they’re awarded the money then I simply can’t live with that, and I don’t see what could change that. It is however greatly helpful to me to be able to discuss the matter on here (as the rest of the time I deal with it all on my own, and it’s a huge burden for one person to carry), so thank you so much for taking the time listen to me and to respond, though I have rather harped on at you...

    As the application was only submitted on Monday I’ve yet to be advised by my solicitors as to what will happen next and how fast. I assume there will be arguments submitted by both sides and a hearing to determine the issue, which means more legal costs to pay! I’ll have to defend it though, so there’s not much choice about incurring more costs.

  • Tell me again, please. What is it they think they can claim money from you for?  

  • What can I do to make you happier in this surrealistic situation? How long before you know if their claim of money will be supported by the tribunal?

  • Well, my employer’s solicitors have now made an application to the Employment Tribunal for their costs from February 2017 to be awarded against me...a whole £17,895.10 in costs!

    That’s me screwed if they get it - I’m not working for the rest of my life to pay back those who did me so much harm. I can’t afford it anyway on top of the £40,000 plus I’ve spent on legal costs up to now (with nothing in return).

  • Thank you for your kind words Lonewarrior. I am sorry to hear of your own battle for justice, but I’m pleased to hear that you got a good outcome in the end. It certainly is very taxing to have to constantly fight such a battle, particularly when you just want what is fair and right.

    You may have noticed that I have a quote on my profile background from George Orwell ‘The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.’ I believe this is accurate and reflected in the suffering myself, you, and others have had to endure purely for telling the truth and wanting honesty. It’s appalling.

    Whatever happens in my case, and whatever I lose, I agree with you in that at least I don’t have a guilty conscience and I know I tried my utmost to get justice. That is something that matters - I’m the bigger person than them. Further, I will continue to fight for reforms to the Employment Tribunal system, and other areas I see injustice, in the hope that I can help prevent others from experiencing what I have.

    My very best wishes to you. Clearly you are amazing too given your own experience! ()

  • Thank you Mandy, I tried my best for what was right. Money and wealth has no meaning for me apart from that it creates evil and sadness, 

    ()

  • Sorry to have read your story. I can feel your hopelessness. Being an empathetic person as you seem, I guess you would have had the hardest time of all involved, since there is no pain like fighting for someone else's happiness. I wish you were my bother. Your sister is lucky to have you!

  • Hi NAS36609. So very sorry to hear your story.  

    I had a three year battle with solicitors in respect of my late mother’s estate.

    I spent many hours every night researching law, trying in vain to stop the injustice of a sibling who sought to take control of the only asset left which was a home. 

    It was never about the money for me, it was about my younger sister who had lived there most of her life, we had all moved out leaving her to look after my father and mother as well as bring up her two children on her own. 

    She should by rights have been allowed to keep the property. She after my fathers death paid the mortgage, she had cared for him for many years as  he battled with cancer, she then looked after my mother who was very ill. Unfortunately my mother had not made a will. And my sister had not sought to have her name added as paying the mortgage, all she had were payments into my mothers account from her account.

    It became a battle between me and his solicitors, three years on they finally pulled out the big guns and took it to  high court.

    It was finally dealt with, his legal costs were taken from the estate before it was divided, there were four of us to inherit. 

    I was the hunted, always having to fend off the constant barrage of letters from his solicitor. They were playing games with me. I always fought my corner with no legal help. I could not afford any help.

    Each time a new letter arrived I found a way to stop whatever it was they were attempting to do.

    research and grit and determination kept me going. Injustice and greed were not going to destroy what my parents had taught me, They taught me honesty. Respect for others and that greed was never an excuse.

    I like to think my mum and dad look down and say well done son you did all you could to make things right for your sister, it cost me my health, but it was never about money or possessions it was about greed from him. 

    Long story, condensed, but I wanted to show how I felt, how I was treated as an annoying flea, the legal system is not on the side of the poor or honest.it is for the rich manipulative and greedy.

     I do not regret the endless sleepless nights, the feelings of dispair at always playing catch up. I did win. Not the property, not wealth as his legal costs put a massive dent on the final-share out. 

    I sleep very well at night. Wether he does now he has lost his family I don’t know?

    I lost two sisters as they gave in to him and decided to roll over and take the money. I refused on the grounds it was morally wrong. 

    It was an evil thing to do against his own, he was the only one with any wealth amongst us, 

    Anyway the above is confused and not complete but it proves that law is an act, a performance, the legal people often work together regardless of the client, well the lesser client, money talks, and the rich often win. 

    I really hope you get closure in whatever way you decide.

     I really feel for you. What happened to you should never be allowed to happen again.

    Also to Mandy, a massive thank you for trying to  help  Nas36609 , You are both amazing people. 

    My heart goes out to you. Take care and you will be in my thoughts, () ()

  • As far as I’m concerned, the system doesn’t serve the purpose it should - bringing justice for employees that have been wronged by their employer. In fact, if anything, I think it helps employers to wriggle out of and cover up their misdemeanours. Which, as you say, allows employers to go on continuing the same poor behaviour. Backwards!

    I have concluded that the only way to truly cost the employer in my case is to make the entire matter public. That though would have implications for my own health and privacy, which I’m not sure I can endure currently (my state of mind has been very fragile since the employer’s poor treatment of me, and other’s opinions about the matter being added to the mix could tip me over the edge). You just can’t win!

    Thank you for your thoughts for me regarding this - it’s good to know that I’m not alone in feeling that all of this is terrible and that I didn’t deserve any of it.

  • But I can't stop feeling terribly bad about your situation. It really hurts me to read your story. I am gonna continue hoping that it will all be ok for you in the end.

  • If my claim was reinstated then that would mean it would go to a full Employment Tribunal hearing of my initial complaints. I was informed today however that the Employment Tribunal have struck out my claim, so that won’t be happening...

    Both myself, the solicitors for both sides and one of my employer’s directors signed the settlement agreement. We were supposed to have a discussion, followed by an apology, after which I would sign a certificate confirming I would not claim breach of contract/personal injury etc. arising out of the apology, and once the signed certificate was received by my employer’s solicitors they would pay me the agreed sum of money.

    However, as the discussion and apology didn’t take place due to the director of my employer refusing to comply with the terms set out in the agreement, that meant I couldn’t sign the certificate to get the money because then I wouldn’t be able to claim breach of contract against the other parts of the agreement. In effect, the employer would reduce my settlement agreement to a payment of money only, even though that’s not what was agreed and not what was most important to me.

    It is realistically impossible to make sure you don’t end up in the same scenario, other than refusing to accept any settlement agreement. That opens you up to other problems though, as above. If you agreed only for a payment of money, and it wasn’t paid, then you could easily claim breach of contract but this would mean further legal proceedings and more legal costs to pay which may ultimately render the settlement sum pointless. If there are any other terms then you’re pretty stuck because a civil court can’t put a value on things like a discussion or apology, so you would get nominal damages at most (a very small sum of money).

    I realise given the above that you may wonder why I ever settled my case. Well, that was 1)because my mum has serious health problems, was unwell at the time of the hearing, and I was very concerned that the 5 days cross examination of me then her might literally kill her, and 2) my solicitor had advised me that if the settlement agreement was not complied with then I could bring my claims back before the Tribunal (which turned out to not exactly be true, unfortunately for me). I could claim negligence against my solicitor for this, but I know it wasn’t done deliberately and I don’t have the energy for such a claim.

    I will now look at other options including breach of contract, my obligations under my settlement agreement and trying to somehow agree with my employer to have the discussion and apology as detailed in my settlement agreement. What a mess!!

  • And "reinstate" - does that mean it is all taken back to the start as if the settlement never happened?

  • Oh, gash! I see the problem. It becomes a completely different issue, not covered by the Tribunal. 
    I am terribly sorry for what you have been going through, and still is. if there would be anything I could do to help, then I sure would.

    May I ask how they could just "not agree" in the end? What can others do to make sure to not end up the same? 

  • You can’t argue a settlement simply isn’t reasonable - once you’ve signed it it’s legally binding. My former employer’s behaviour in not complying with it certainly isn’t reasonable, but this is a matter for a civil court as opposed to an Employment Tribunal. Therefore, if I try to get my claims before the Employment Tribunal reinstated, they could argue there are no prospects of success and as such my behaviour is unreasonable and they should be awarded costs.

    It’s all very confusing I know - I did say my experienced solicitor hadn’t come across such a scenario before!

    The link is saying that if you choose to take a case to a hearing and are awarded less by the Employment Tribunal than you were previously offered in settlement, then your employer has a basis for arguing for costs against you. It doesn’t mean they will, or it will be awarded, but it is a risk. Further, the Employment Tribunal is known to have ruled that way in the past.

    I could only claim back legal costs if I made a breach of contract claim in the civil courts. Further, I am not ‘on the safe side’ unfortunately - even if I claimed breach of contract I wouldn’t get more in money from the settlement than I have paid in legal costs and the rest of the agreement cannot be enforced. Therefore, my two year Employment Tribunal proceedings would leave me with only lost money and wasted energy. That’s why I want my claims reinstated, but that’s a very difficult thing to get.