Disabled woman, sacked after stroke, wins £20,000 compensation

June 7th 2006

A 22-year old Blackpool woman has won substantial damages against a former employer who had sacked her after she had a stroke and became blind.

Hayley Tudor was awarded £20,352.85.

The case, supported by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC)* and held at Manchester Employment Tribunal, represents one of the first cases of direct discrimination brought by a disabled person against an employer under Part 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that ended up in court. The case was also supported by Action for Blind People and Trafford Law Centre.

Hayley was dismissed from her job as an animal nursing assistant by Spen Corner Veterinary Surgery after she had a stroke in May 2005. She lost her sight in June of that year as a result of her stroke. In July, Hayley phoned her employers to inform them she was out of hospital and could resume work only to be told she had already been sacked.

The Veterinary surgery had made an assumption without seeking any advice, that there was no point in even trying to continue to employ Hayley after her stroke. However, considering her job mainly consisted of receptionist duties, it would have been easy to make some reasonable adjustments for her.

Bert Massie, Chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, welcomed the legal judgment:

"This was a very clear case of direct discrimination because Hayley's employer made assumptions about her ability to carry out the job after she became disabled.  Her employer also did not consider any reasonable adjustments to enable her to remain in employment. It is one of the first cases where the tribunal has had to consider direct discrimination and as such sets a standard for ensuring disabled people have equal rights in employment." 

Hayley Tudor commented:

"My employer never gave me the chance to prove I was still capable of doing the job I had been doing very successfully for almost a year before my stroke. They could have made adjustments for me like slightly modifying some of the equipment, allowing me to work flexibly and making a few adjustments to the premises yet none of this was offered. I'm just pleased that now justice has been done and that the decision in this case could be used to help other disabled people in my position."

Bert Massie continued:

"There are 1 million disabled people who want to work but are unable to do so.  This case makes it clear that if employers make assumptions about disabled people and their ability to work, or fail to consider what adjustments can be made to enable disabled people to work they will be acting unlawfully."

The unemployment rate of disabled people is nearly twice as high (9%) as that of non-disabled people (5%) meaning there is a huge pool of talent for employers to draw on (Labour Force Survey, Summer 2003).  Retaining employees who become disabled also makes business sense, as employers benefit by holding on to the skills and experience of the employee, and by not having to go through a lengthy and costly recruitment process. 

Action for Blind People Chief Executive Stephen Remington said:

"I hope this raises awareness amongst employers that they can make reasonable adjustments to enable visually impaired people to work and there is support out there to help them achieve this."