A claimant has received £50,000 in compensation because of “victimising”, “unlawful” and “oppressive” behaviour by a Jobcentre Disability Employment Adviser and work coaches.
The profoundly deaf claimant was in receipt of JSA and spent 6 years trying to get proper support to move into work from his local jobcentre in Leeds.
But staff there:
- repeatedly failed to provide the claimant with a BSL interpreter;
- sanctioned him, after providing a poorly qualified interpreter whose lack of skills prevented the claimant from providing evidence that he was looking for work;
- refused to give the claimant access to video conferencing calls during and after the pandemic;
- sent an internal email suggesting that the claimant had already used too many Jobcentre resources and needed ‘firm work coaching’ using directions and sanctions.
The claimant told the tribunal:
“I do feel that the Job Centre and the DWP have not wanted to help me because it is too difficult and too expensive for them. I also feel that most DWP staff do not understand the difficulties facing me as a profoundly deaf person.”
Unusually, the claim was brought in an employment tribunal rather than the county court.
But the employment tribunal decided it could hear the case because it considered the Jobcentre to be an Employment service-provider for the purposes of Section 55 of the Equality Act.
The tribunal judge considered that the internal email from a Disability Employment Adviser was victimising, unlawful and oppressive. In awarding exemplary damages, the judge held that:
“This is the sort of email or conduct which anyone in receipt of services from a job centre would fear, that if job coaches or others are challenged, there will be reprisals.”
The tribunal’s award consisted of:
- £33,000 by way of injury to feelings incorporating aggravated damages of £5000;
- £10,000 exemplary damages in respect of an email sent about him:
- £6880 by way of interest.
You can read a more detailed account by Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre, who represented the claimant so effectively.
You can read the full judgement here.
Thanks to Rightsnet, the website for welfare rights workers, for highlighting this case.
