The case of Chawla v Hewlett Packard highlights the potential for indirect discrimination when severing remote access for long-term sick employees.
- David Hodge emphasises the importance of the Equality Act 2010 in protecting against discrimination.
- Chawla’s access to crucial information was limited, impacting his financial opportunities.
- The Employment Tribunal found that Hewlett Packard failed to make reasonable adjustments for Chawla.
- This case serves as a warning for companies considering similar access limitations.
In the realm of employment law, the case of Chawla v Hewlett Packard Ltd stands as a significant example of the complexities associated with severing remote access for employees on long-term sick leave. Hewlett Packard’s decision to suspend Chawla’s email and intranet access in 2007 was rooted in a policy aimed at reducing security risks; however, this action inadvertently resulted in substantial consequences for Chawla, who was on sick leave due to stress-related illness.
The Employment Tribunal’s findings underscored a failure to maintain adequate communication with Chawla regarding significant changes within the company, including the TUPE transfer and share options. These oversights led to his inability to partake in Hewlett Packard’s share purchase plan and, ultimately, incurred a tax liability. The Tribunal’s decision highlighted that while there was no direct financial loss linked to the denial of email access, the failure to provide timely and critical information constituted a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under employment law.
The legal proceedings revealed that Hewlett Packard did not satisfactorily consult with or notify Chawla of changes affecting his employment terms. This oversight contravened the TUPE regulations, which are designed to preserve employees’ rights during organisational transitions. The Tribunal’s judgement, which was upheld on appeal, illustrated the pitfalls of not adapting company policies to accommodate the unique circumstances of employees on long-term sick leave.
David Hodge, a distinguished Partner and Head of Employment Law at Brethertons Solicitors, cautions that indirect discrimination can occur when policies disproportionately disadvantage a ‘protected’ group, as per the Equality Act 2010. This case exemplifies the need for employers to scrutinise their policies and ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws to safeguard against similar outcomes.
Ultimately, this situation provides a critical warning to organisations contemplating the disconnection of remote access for long-term sick employees, underscoring the importance of reasonable adjustments and thorough communication to avoid indirect discrimination allegations.
The case of Chawla v Hewlett Packard serves as a critical reminder for organisations to carefully consider policy impacts, ensuring compliance with discrimination laws.
