The claimants were police officers who had been recognised as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland).  As a result of this recognition, they had ‘H1 Certificates’ which allowed them access to a ‘deferred pension’ when they were leaving the police.   However, the two claimants decided to leave the police under a voluntary redundancy scheme that had been established which gave lump sums which would have been 21 months for the first claimant and 18 months for the second claimant.   However, due to their classification of being disabled and their access to the deferred pension it was decided that they would only be given 6 months’ pay as their compensatory lump sum on taking voluntary redundancy.

At first instance, it was held the decision to cap the compensatory lump sums was discriminatory under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 which states that there will be discrimination when a person is treated less favourably due to their disability and that the treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The respondent sought to rely upon the Supreme Court decision in Williams v Trustee of Swansea University Pension Assurance Scheme [2018] but as it related to the awarding of a pension rather than capping a payment, the case was distinguished. Therefore, in examining the two limbs of Section 15 the EAT held that the fact that the claimants possessed H1 certificates allowing them to get their deferred pension was clearly in the consequence of their disability.

The second limb was whether there was a legitimate aim.   The respondent made the argument that it was a legitimate aim as there would be a double benefit in that they would be receiving the same compensatory lump sum yet also able to avail of the deferred pension.   According to the respondent, this would have amounted to an unexpected windfall for the two claimants.   Whilst the EAT acknowledged that there could be a financial benefit in using the voluntary redundancy scheme rather than leaving through ill-health this was not the contention made by the respondent.  The EAT rejected the appeal by Gwent Police on the basis that they had sought to suggest that there would be an windfall from having the deferred pension which was linked to the disability and receiving the same compensatory sum as their non-disabled counterparts.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates an interesting area of law where there may be an adjustment for a disabled employee to pension benefits, yet they then also seek to avail of redundancy benefits.  This may have the effect of being a ‘windfall’ as was discussed in the case yet the EAT has made it clear that it will not allow for a reduction purely on that basis as it would not be a proportionate way of seeking to achieve a legitimate aim.   Therefore, employers will need to be cognisant of their schemes for voluntary redundancy and ensure that any adjustments for disabled employees are within the parameters of the law and are not discriminatory.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/chief-constable-of-gwent-police-v-mr-s-parsons-and-mr-d-roberts-ukeat-0143-18-da