1. Employers are entitled to consider dismissing an employee for gross misconduct, and in most cases this will be justified, but they must have carried out a proper investigation and put the allegations to the employee at a disciplinary meeting 2. A dismissal is likely to be fair if the employer has acted within a range of reasonable management responses 3. Employees need two years' service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal; however, there is no minimum service requirement for claims of discrimination brought under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) 4. Section 15 of the EqA provides that an employer is liable if it treats a person with a disability unfavourably 'because of something arising in consequence' of the disability - but only if the employer knew or ought to have known that the person was disabled, and could not justify its actions as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim 5. In Grosset v City of York, an employee dismissed for gross misconduct was able to show that he had been discriminated against because the misconduct resulted from uncharacteristically poor judgement, which arose as a consequence of his disability - dismissal was disproportionately harsh treatment 6. Certain health conditions are excluded from protection under the EqA, notably substance addiction, tendency to steal, tendency to physical or sexual abuse of others, and exhibitionism 7. In Wood v Durham County Council, a local authority anti-social behaviour officer was dismissed because he had stolen goods from a local store. The employee said his behaviour resulted from his mental health condition but was unable to benefit from section-15 protection because 'tendency to steal' is excluded 8. By contrast, if a disability, such as dementia, meant an employee simply forgot to pay and had had no intention of stealing goods from a shop, the condition would not be excluded, Discrimination might be upheld if the employer knew of the disability and the sanction was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
展开▼
机译：1.雇主有权考虑因严重不当行为而解雇雇员，在大多数情况下，这是有道理的，但他们必须进行了适当的调查，并将有关指控提交纪律会议。2.解雇很可能会如果雇主在合理的管理回应范围内采取了行动，则是公平的。3.雇员需要两年的服务才能提出普通不公平解雇的索赔；但是，对于根据《 2010年平等法》（EqA）4提出的歧视主张，没有最低服务要求。《 EqA》第15条规定，如果雇主以不利的方式对待残疾人，则雇主应承担责任，因为”，但前提是雇主知道或应该知道该人是残疾人，并且不能以其行为作为实现合法目标的适当手段而辩解。5.在Grosset v York of York，一名雇员因严重的不当行为能够表明他受到歧视，因为不当行为是由于他的残疾而造成的异常差的判断所致-开除是过分苛刻的治疗。6，某些健康状况被排除在EqA的保护范围之外，尤其是物质成瘾，偷窃倾向，对他人的身体或性虐待倾向以及暴露狂7.在伍德诉达勒姆郡议会中，卡勒威当局的反社会行为干事被解雇，因为他从当地商店偷走了货物。该雇员说他的行为是由于他的心理健康状况造成的，但由于排除了“偷窃倾向”，因此无法从第15条保护中受益。8相反，如果是一种失智症（例如痴呆症），则意味着该雇员只是忘记了支付和不打算从商店偷东西，不会排除这种情况，如果雇主知道残障并且制裁不是实现正当目的的适当手段，则可能会维持歧视
展开▼
