Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The case of Carreras v United First Partners Research concerns a disability discrimination claim made by a disabled employee against his previous employers – Mr Carreras claimed that he had been required to work long hours at the firm and that this requirement had disadvantaged him because of his disability (leading to his resignation). The Employment Tribunal rejected Mr Carreras’ claim, holding that he had relied on an inaccurate ‘PCP’ in bringing the claim (essentially that he had pleaded that the long working hours were a ‘requirement’ rather than an ‘expectation or assumption’). Mr Carreras appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld his appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s overly-technical approach to the ‘PCP’ issue meant that it had dealt with this point more narrowly than it should have done.

The factual background of Carreras v United First Partners Research

Mr Carreras was a ‘high-flying’ analyst for United First Partners Research (“UFPR”) from 1 October 2011 to the date of his resignation on 14 February 2014. From the start of his employment Mr Carreras worked long hours and was considered to be good at what he did. From the start of his employment it was normal for Mr Carreras to work 12-13 hour days.

On 22 July 2012 Mr Carreras was hit by a car whilst riding his bicycle and suffered severe physical injuries. Despite this, he returned to work within a few weeks. UFPR was aware that Mr Carreras continued to suffer from physical symptoms of his injuries, including dizziness, fatigue, and headaches, and that he had found it difficult to concentrate and focus, particularly in the evenings. After his accident Mr Carreras initially worked no more than eight hours a day for the first six months; after this six month period he started to work approximately 10 hours a day until the start of 2013.

Mr Carreras felt that from the start of 2013 UFPR started to put pressure on him again to work later evenings (in order to cover the US markets) and that he was being forced to work “unsuitable hours”. Mr Carreras did not complain at this point that he was being asked to work late one or two nights a week and UFPR appear to have assumed that, on this basis, he was in fact willing to work late or two nights a week; Mr Carreras’ perspective was that he worked late nights without complaining as he was worried about being made redundant or not receiving his bonus.

A number of incidents also occurred in 2013 and 2014 which led to a breakdown in the working relationship between Mr Carreras and UFPR, including:

  • That UFPR failed to pay Mr Carreras’ first 2013 bonus instalment payment on time in 2013 (being received two weeks late) and failed to pay him the 2013 bonus instalment due in April 2014, due to the termination of Mr Carreras’ employment
  • That UFPR had given misleading answers to Mr Carreras’ solicitors with regards to questions asked that were relevant to his personal injury claim
  • That on 14 February 2014 there was a heated exchange between Mr Carreras and Mr Mardel, an owner of UFPR, and that Mr Mardel raised his voice to Mr Carreras; reprimanded Mr Carreras in front of other colleagues; told Mr Carreras to apologise to his colleagues; and told Mr Carreras to leave if he did not like Mr Mardel’s behaviour

Mr Carreras verbally informed Human Resources at UFPR on 14 February 2014 that he was resigning with immediate effect, and then wrote to UFPR on 18 February 2014 to give detailed reasons as to why he had resigned (including the bonus issue, the failure to answer the questions, accurately, and the argument with Mr Mardel).

Mr Carreras subsequently brought against UFPR claims for constructive dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

The Employment Tribunal rejected Mr Carreras’ claims for the following reasons:

  • Failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability: the Tribunal considered that Mr Carreras had not succeeded in showing that a relevant ‘PCP’ had placed him at a disadvantage – Mr Carreras had argued that the ‘expectation’ that he would be able to work late evenings was a ‘requirement’ (or a practice); the Tribunal found that Mr Carreras had not succeeded with showing that there was any ‘requirement’ that he would work late evenings, only that there was an ‘expectation’ or ‘assumption’ that he would do so
  • Constructive dismissal: the Tribunal found that Mr Carreras had not succeeded in showing that his resignation was because of the failure to pay him his bonus payments, the inaccurately-answered questions, or the argument with Mr Mardel.

Mr Carreras appealed against the Tribunal’s findings on the grounds that the conclusion that the Tribunal had come to with regards to the discrimination and constructive dismissal claims were perverse; UFPR cross-appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had failed to deal with the issue of whether Mr Carreras’ conduct had affirmed any breaches of contract on UFPR’s part.

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that Mr Carreras’ appeals should be upheld for the following reasons:

  • Failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability: the Tribunal had approached the issue of the PCP on an overly-narrow and technical basis; what they in fact should have done was to have approached the question on a more liberal basis – the expectation or assumption that Mr Carreras would work late evenings reasonably amounted to a requirement that he would do, and thus satisfied the PCP issue. This issue was remitted to the Tribunal to consider what the nature and effect of any disadvantage the Claimant suffered by the virtue of the PCP was and, further whether any reasonable adjustments were made
  • Constructive dismissal: the EAT found that the Tribunal should have considered whether Mr Carreras’ resignation was caused in whole or in part on the breaches of contract alleged by Mr Carreras; the EAT concluded that Mr Carreras’ conduct must have been caused wholly or partly by (at least) the argument with Mr Mardel on 14 February 2014 and that it was therefore causative of his resignation. The EAT concluded that Mr Carreras’ constructive dismissal case must succeed on the facts

Why is this case important?

The important element of this case is, arguably, the EAT’s conclusions on the disability discrimination point: Tribunals should not adopt an overly-narrow or -technical approach when concluding whether a Practice, Criterion or Provision applies, but must take a broad, liberal view of whether any act or omission by the employer caused the disabled employee any disadvantage by virtue of his disability.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.73 Average

92 Reviews

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors provided a professional and prompt service in dealing with my settlement agreement. They used their experience to negotiate a better deal for which I am grateful for. I highly recommend their services.

Posted 1 day ago

Cheryl R

Very efficient and friendly lawyers. I have used Redmans twice now and Chris Hadrill has been amazing to work with. Would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

I found Redmans Solicitors to be extremely professional, dealing with my questions and concerns quickly and in detail. I would have no hesitation in recommending Redmans Solicitors to anyone.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 1 week ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 1 week ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 1 week ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 1 week ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 1 week ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 1 week ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago