We use Cookies - by using this site or closing this message you're agreeing to our Cookies policy

Victimisation Compensation Reduced

Successful claimants don’t always get the compensation they think they’re entitled to. One reason is the possibility of awards being reduced to reflect the part the claimant played in what happened to them. In the Das case, it came down to how likely it was that the claimant would have got the job he felt he had been denied the opportunity of getting.

The claimant was a doctor who had previously worked for the Health Board. The employment relationship had been rocky. Some years after having resigned, he applied for a role there. (This followed some unsuccessful applications for other posts with the Health Board.) He was the only applicant and was shortlisted but the vacancy was withdrawn before he could be interviewed. There was concern that if he wasn’t offered the job then he would claim discrimination. There was also a re-organisation underway, and the Health Board might have decided not to fill the vacancy in any event.

The tribunal held that he had been subjected to victimisation. But it reduced his compensation by 90% on the basis that he had only a 10% chance of being appointed in that role. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that decision. It was significant that the Health Board was prepared to not appoint anyone to the position.

We'd love to stay in touch.

Subscribe for email updates

MyHR Department is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. If you consent to us contacting you with information on relevant products and services, please tick the box below:

I agree to receive other communications from MyHR Department.

You can unsubscribe from communications at any time. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy. By clicking submit below, you consent to allow MyHR Department to store and process the personal information submitted above to provide you the content requested.

Processing

Thank you for subscribing!