About to be fired for gross misconduct...need advise

Genuineguy03

Oh and comms. As for the 9 protected characteristic, mental illness falls under disability. Or are you saying otherwise?

Nothing like doing research without actually reading more than just the first page of text eh!

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Oh and comms. As for the 9 protected characteristic, mental illness falls under disability. Or are you saying otherwise?

Nothing like doing research without actually reading more than just the first page of text eh!

Mental illness CAN fall under it. It also CANNOT. It can be both!

Do you not understand that things aren't as black and white as you say?

They are currently off with random pain which is making them anxious... Random pain is NOT a disability.

Comms69

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@comms

I think you'll find you can't sack someone for having to spend ten - 12 weeks recovering from a broken leg. - yes you can. Nor can you treat any time off recovering as an absense. - yes you can. You'll likely find their protected under other legislation and even employers own policies. Same for any short time illness or disability. - Workplace policies vary. If 12 weeks absence is enough for dismissal that is what they can do

As for the example off depression caused by love of a loved one, where it could be months before they return to work. - what a load of nonsense Well you take into account that treatment is likely ongoing for a longer period and that they were signed off by a GP and therefore advised refrain from work. So the Raynor v turning point case law applies and therefore they be protected.

If fact the Raynor v turning case law would likely apply to the broken leg example if signed off by a GP and/or if they suffer other issues, related to the initial injury, that would require long term treatment, such as chronic pain arthritis etc. - Potentially. A disability is not the same as an illness or injury

Its not just as simple as what is written in black and white, and cut and pasted here.

I know what you referred to what I stated about short term, and I probably should have been clearer in regards to possible on going treatment. But then I'd expect other with experience here to know depression doesn't go away over night and that a broken leg can result in other conditions long term conditions as a direct consequence. I also probably should gave mentioned the Raynor case to start with.

Nothing that you've written changes anything at all. That case focuses on the fact that a GPs opinion, in terms of deciding whether it is a disability or not, is of value. NOT that a GPs note prevents dismissal.

Comms69

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Oh and comms. As for the 9 protected characteristic, mental illness falls under disability. Or are you saying otherwise?

Nothing like doing research without actually reading more than just the first page of text eh!

NO.


Mental illness MIGHT fall under disability, it also might not.

Genuineguy03

You can post your opinion as much as you like, but nothing you have said makes anything I have said inaccurate.

You completely ignored the fact that Rayner hadn't had the condition for 12 months or more, as the period for assessing disability was may 2007 - march 2008 which is 10 months - which is when Rayner was receiving treatment and continued to do so after. Rayners employer and their employed medical experts, also didn't, like it seems you haven't either, take into account Rayner's current treatment or length of ongoing future treatment. Basically employers have to take in to account not just length of time an employee has had the condition, but also the length of time that he's likely to continue to have the condition.

The doctors note, signing Raynor off for 6 weeks due to anxietey and depression was enough to satisfy the appeal tribunal that Rayner's condition had an adverse effect on daily activities.

Here's the full judgement, though something tells me not many here will make sense of it - https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6880

Now its funny that no one has posted links to anything, tgat would prove me wrong, on any thread where this debate on when a mental or physical condition amounts to a disability protected under law. Yet I have on more than one occasion.

nicechap

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Here's the full judgement, though something tells me not many here will make sense of it - https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6880

The irony when you can hardly string an intelligent sentence together. (And believe me if you actually had dyslexia you wouldn’t be slating other people’s comprehension skills :rotfl: )

elsien

Shame that the 3 pages of repeating the same misinformation has scared the OP off.
For someone purporting to want to help you're creating a very divisive effect.

Comms69

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

You can post your opinion as much as you like, but nothing you have said makes anything I have said inaccurate.

You completely ignored the fact that Rayner hadn't had the condition for 12 months or more, as the period for assessing disability was may 2007 - march 2008 which is 10 months - which is when Rayner was receiving treatment and continued to do so after. Rayners employer and their employed medical experts, also didn't, like it seems you haven't either, take into account Rayner's current treatment or length of ongoing future treatment. Basically employers have to take in to account not just length of time an employee has had the condition, but also the length of time that he's likely to continue to have the condition.

The doctors note, signing Raynor off for 6 weeks due to anxietey and depression was enough to satisfy the appeal tribunal that Rayner's condition had an adverse effect on daily activities.

Here's the full judgement, though something tells me not many here will make sense of it - https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6880

Now its funny that no one has posted links to anything, tgat would prove me wrong, on any thread where this debate on when a mental or physical condition amounts to a disability protected under law. Yet I have on more than one occasion.

I was quoting the .gov website... those pesky MPs making laws...

Genuineguy03

No the irony is that as soon as I post advice, its immediately attacked. I've been open about my dsyelixa, and then I get that used against me, when none of the 3-4 people ganging up on me have provided any evidence (case laws etc) to dispute the accuracy of my advice that is given in accordance with an OPs specific describe circumstances. Instead you all try to make it a generalised argument on points of law, with no consideration to how OPs specific circumstances would be supported by said law. Of course I refer to what and when a physical or mental impairment is deemed in law a disability. Which I have always maintained is when the condition is long term and has an effect in the sufferers daily activities. Only to then be accused of saying IBS is an automatic disability, just like HIV is. Which i never once stated.

So if your not going to provide anything as evidence to prove my advice is wrong, nonsense or dangerous etc etc. Then I suggest you don't reply to my posts.