Follow us

Employers should review bonus or other schemes designed to reward good attendance levels, to assess whether any discriminatory affect against disabled employees can be justified.

In Land Registry v Houghton, the aim of an employer's bonus scheme was to reward good performance and attendance. However, it automatically excluded from an award those who had received a formal warning in respect of sickness absence (regardless of any improvement in attendance post warning). In contrast, managers were given a discretion whether to exclude employees who had received a warning for misconduct.

The claimants had high absence levels due to disability-related illness. The employer had adjusted the usual trigger points for absence warnings for the disabled claimants, and the warnings themselves were not unlawful. However, the automatic exclusion from the bonus scheme because of the warnings was clearly less favourable treatment in consequence of disability. It was not justified given the lack of discretion (compared with the position for misconduct warnings) and failure to reward improved attendance post-warning. The automatic exclusion from bonus was unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that the warnings themselves were not unlawful. It was no defence that the member of HR who disallowed the bonus because of the warning was unaware of the claimants’ disability.

Key contacts

Samantha Brown photo

Samantha Brown

Managing Partner of EPI (West), London

Samantha Brown
Steve Bell photo

Steve Bell

Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne

Steve Bell
Emma Rohsler photo

Emma Rohsler

Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris

Emma Rohsler
Andrew Taggart photo

Andrew Taggart

Partner, London

Andrew Taggart
Fatim Jumabhoy photo

Fatim Jumabhoy

Managing Partner, Singapore, Singapore

Fatim Jumabhoy
Barbara Roth photo

Barbara Roth

Partner, New York

Barbara Roth