Selection for redundancy

Case 9: The facts

Miss Difolco was left partially paralysed after an accident at work and started working part-time, some of it from home. She was later selected for redundancy ahead of a colleague who had the same job title but lacked Difolco’s qualifications and experience and was on a much lower salary. Difolco was offered only one alternative post, which she rejected because it was full-time.

The selection criteria only took work done for the employer into account, and Difolco said this disadvantaged her because of her disability and her part-time status. She claimed that her dismissal had been unfair and discriminatory, and a tribunal agreed.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal pointed out that a tribunal’s job is to analyse the nature and application of redundancy selection criteria, and the extent (if any) to which disabled staff are disadvantaged as a result.

Difolco had not shown that she could not display her skills as a result of her part-time working, it said, so her dismissal was not discriminatory. But her employer should have considered offering her the alternative job on a part-time basis; its failure to do so was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The case was sent to a different tribunal to consider this issue.

NTL Group Ltd v Difolco UKEAT/0120/05