Disability discrimination during covid pandemic - Page 5 — Scope | Disability forum
Please read our updated community house rules and community guidelines.

Disability discrimination during covid pandemic

123578

Comments

  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    janer1967 said:
    No problem I'm not certain if you send evidence at this stage but you can say you have email evidence to back up your claim 
    Thanks Sweetheart, I have email evidence and chats from my work colleagues to back up my claims. It's bizarre I have quite a lot of evidence via chat or email. Conclusion is either they are not very astute when it comes to legal matters or they know something I don't.  Not about that, it's the way they have totally disregarded my feelings/and/or/disability. It amounts to shut up and put up and we don't really care one hoot about how you are feeling and the fact you are disabled.  
    If a company did that to me, I would promptly seek legal advice with a view to taking them to the cleaners under the Equality Act for discrimination.

    Like I probably should for all 3 of the companies who rejected me last week.

    I can't help that I can't work 50 hours a week due to the carers, nor can I help that 100% of my customer facing retail experience comes from working in Charity shops, they're literally the only place that will take a guy like me on no questions asked apart from maybe a DBS check in some circumstances.

    I am sorry you are going through that.  I think you should seek legal advice and the reason I believe you should, is I don't feel companies should be able to walk over people with disabilities and play on their vulnerability. I also believe that if we don't make a stand, then nothing will change and the laws will just tighten up and be to the advantage of unscrupulous companies to the extent where it goes back to the days of "Master and Serf". I feel that is what is happening slowly with the working world. I also feel they know the law, but 99 per cent of vulnerable people cannot or don't want to fight against such big companies, so the companies become blasé and then start bending the rules.  If I win this case, I promise you if you need advice to help with anything concerning your fight for justice, I will be there.  
  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    Feeling 'slow' is a very common symptom of depression @shellbell20, so you're not alone in feeling that way. It can make it really difficult to get seemingly 'easy' tasks done. As you'll know, it's really important to stay fed and hydrated, especially when you're feeling unwell. Is it that you don't feel hungry, or do you find it difficult to muster the energy to prepare and eat food?

    You definitely haven't let your family down. Have they been supportive over the years? It can be difficult to find the right words for both the person living with the mental health condition and their loved ones- do you feel like you can talk to them when things get hard? Are they able to help around the house in terms of when you forget things are on the stove and so on?

    Antidepressants can take a while to work, and they can unfortunately make you feel a bit worse before they make you feel better. Have you considered trying a different kind of antidepressant, seeing as the change in dosage didn't help? Each one has different side effects and everyone reacts differently. 

    Are your family able to help you make the appointment for the blood tests? 

    That's frustrating regarding the counselling, but I hope you'll feel able to schedule in some more appointments after the 3 months have passed, should you feel you need them.

    I'm sure you're probably aware of their services, but I just wanted to remind you that you can always get in touch with a listening service if you feel as though you want to talk things through confidentially with someone who'll listen. You don't have to be suicidal to contact Samaritans (most people who call them aren't suicidal), and you can speak to them over the phone on 116 123 or via email at jo@samaritans.org. If you prefer to chat over text, you can text SHOUT to 85258. The community is always here for you too, of course :) 
    I don't like to burden my family. I have one son and he has his own life, although I am temporarily living with him and his wife. I  have decided to go to the USA to see my husband. Long story, was trying to sponsor him,(he is American) but that hasn't worked out, now I have lost my job. I did request time off work to see him after a severe tooth infection in April that had knocked me off my feet and even then they decided to make it difficult, each company saying ask the other one and never being able to book time off. No wonder I feel dizzy, I am like the tennis ball being whacked around.  I will be flying out next Monday just booked my flight.  At our  home in the USA there is total tranquility and peace, plus the added bonus of a cuddle from hubby. xx
  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    edited June 2021
    TG0601 said:
    So good to hear you’ve had success. At ETs. Did you have judicial mediation before the main hearing? I’ve got mine in 2 weeks. My solicitor said it’s to discuss settlement. I compiled a schedule of losses for ACAS which included injury to feelings & injury to health. I used the vento bands as a guide. I went high vento band due to the longevity & amount of episodes. I didn’t even get a “sod off” just radio silence. So I’ve submitted the same schedule of losses to my solicitor for the judicial hearing. I’m not sure what to expect. I just hope my solicitor fights hard for me. Username_removed said:
    Have probably repped 30. Have taken 3 of my own and settled 2 of 3 for 4 figure sums before Perhaps you might be available to share some advice? I know I could do with some and would be exceedingly grateful. I have just been making notes,  for the half an hour law session I am receiving next Friday. I feel @TG0601 would also appreciate any advise from you too. 
    My only advice would be that this is simply not a case to run without representation.  


     I am not sure which case you are talking about, but I guess we both need legal representation. Unfortunately for myself I am stuck in a void as I earnt too much and I am not in a Trade Union, nor do I have legal cover under house insurance or such. I hope @TG0601 you have that support!  I know that I shall be penning my ET1 in the next 30 days, part of it  probably here and the other part from my home in the USA, where I might  actually take time to breathe and think clearly.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Listener
    edited June 2021
    They said home working wasn’t available, however it was. When I asked again to work from home as my colleagues were able to, I was told my absence recorded was higher than there’s so I couldn’t.

    The key point of your situation is here. This sounds like a constructive dismissal. That's when employers try to fire someone based on discrimination, in a way that would break the anti-discrimination law (Equality Act 2010), but they can't be forthright about it because there could be repercussions, so they skirt around the rules (as a loophole) to create a reason for someone to be fired.

    An example of constructive dismissal is an autistic person who works in a supermarket or service industry, and their employer demands they turn up at work at 7am even though the employer knows the employee doesn't drive and the journey to catch a taxi or uber to work is long - while at the same time giving other employees the option to choose not to attend work at 7am. In this example which really happened, the autistic person thought that his manager wants to fire him for being autistic, but is using the late for work excuse as a pretext.

    Another example would be an employer or manager who wants to fire someone for a discriminatory reason, so to skirt around the Equality Act 2010, they promote someone without giving them the any training or the correct training, in order to set them up so they are eventually fired for bad performance or gross negligence. Or even better, have their work shift happen when inspectors like Trading Standards come into work. This happened to someone I know, and he wasn't sure what characteristic he was discriminated against for, as he has more than one minority status.

    I can't think of any more examples of constructive dismissal on the spot. So I suppose the best chances of winning the employment tribunal would be to prove that your manager or employer denied you reasonable adjustments (working at home) that were given to other employees.
  • TG0601
    TG0601 Community member Posts: 51 Connected
    @innocent21 thank you so much for your reply. My solicitor has made a case for indirect disability discrimination, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments & harassment & victimisation. I also think I could have a sex discrimination case as I firmly believe the manager wouldn’t have treated a male the way he treated me in my grievance hearing. He laughed at me, mocked & demeaned me. So many incidents have happened over the last 4 years. It’s been appalling. Not passing my probation because of disability absence & keeping me on probation 2 years 8 months was the start. I’ve got case law of cases won just on that point alone. As I’m still employed by them but off long term sick (I won’t be going back whatever happens) my solicitor plans to discuss constructive dismissal at the judicial mediation, as I’ve said I have no faith or confidence in the company & I’ve been put in a position that I can’t ho back because of their treatment. You’re exactly right. Companies try to manipulate a situation to either sack or force an employee to leave. I was very much treated the way I was because they didn’t want me working there & was hoping I’d walk & get another job. 
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Listener
    edited June 2021
    If you try to claim two characteristics as a basis for being discriminated against (sex and disability) instead of one (disability) it is likely that your legal case will collapse and be thrown out before the tribunal or the defendant found "not liable" as a tribunal verdict, because it will be seen to claim for two characteristics, that you are doing a frivolous lawsuit. According to government statistics, 14 million british people are disabled, 11 million are at working age, and 8 million of them are in work. This is with a 66.7 million population, whereas men and women make up 50% of the population.

    You've indicated that you're a woman. The burden of proving sex based discrimination compared to disability is much greater because men and women are more prevalent than disabled people, so it's much easier for an employer to say "I don't discriminate against women, because I hire lots of women and treat them respectfully, kindly and fairly and they are happy with the way I manage and communicate with them". It will be easy for your ex-employer to use other women he employs as an example as to why he has a good character to defend against accusations of discrimination whilst also preventing you and your solicitor from doing a character assassination. So to claim two characteristics instead of one, be ready of being accused of making a frivolous lawsuit not just by the defendant and his lawyer, but also by the impartial judge at the tribunal who will question you.
  • janer1967
    janer1967 Community member Posts: 21,964 Disability Gamechanger
    Personally I have took a back seat now in this thread as I feel some of the advice given will just be confusing these two members 

    I would advise strongly to follow the legal advice you have secured for yourself 
  • Lisatho11987777
    Lisatho11987777 Scope Member Posts: 5,911 Disability Gamechanger
    Very confusing conflicting advice follow your legal representation  is the best thing to do 
  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    janer1967 said:
    Personally I have took a back seat now in this thread as I feel some of the advice given will just be confusing these two members 

    I would advise strongly to follow the legal advice you have secured for yourself 
    I tend to agree, not to the detriment of others who are  trying to help in their own way. I personally feel that I  am paddling with a hole in the boat, with a tidal wave approaching and crying out for help and nobody hears my  utter despair. 
  • TG0601
    TG0601 Community member Posts: 51 Connected
    Thanks Mike. I concur with all of your points ? next week’s judicial mediation will be very interesting. 
    Your case is clearly not being pursued on the basis of constructive dismissal and there appear to be sound legal reasons for that.

    1 - constructive dismissal is by far the hardest type to pursue and there are strict limits on compensation and some potentially fairly damaging offsets. A constructive dismissal win is a rare win indeed. Alternative grounds will almost always be sought.

    2 - discrimination cases are difficult, but not as difficult. There us no upper limit on the damages element and the bar for issues like harassment is surprisingly low. 

    The previous post about cases collapsing appears to be opinion dressed as fact. I have seen no such case(s).I suggest the poster post links relating to the “collapse” of such challenges bearing in mind that an ET is not a trial so cannot “collapse” in that sense and reports on such cases are unlikely to be public domain unless very high profile indeed as only the reporting of ET outcomes are public domain.

    EA10 explicitly addresses additive and intersectional discrimination and allows a person with more than one characteristic to either have them amalgamated as one or choose one or the other. I am unaware of any evidence that having two makes anything harder in your sort of case. 

  • Tori_Scope
    Tori_Scope Scope Posts: 12,488 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi @innocent21,
    This sounds like a constructive dismissal. That's when employers try to fire someone based on discrimination, in a way that would break the anti-discrimination law (Equality Act 2010), but they can't be forthright about it because there could be repercussions, so they skirt around the rules (as a loophole) to create a reason for someone to be fired.
    This isn't quite right. ACAS outline that:
    An employee can make a constructive dismissal claim if they resign because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    Examples could include:
    • regularly not being paid the agreed amount without a good reason
    • being bullied or discriminated against
    • raising a grievance that the employer refuses to look into
    • making unreasonable changes to working patterns or place of work without agreement
    It could be because of one serious incident or a series of things.

    Citizens advice go on to explain that:

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal. This is called constructive dismissal.

    To be successful you'll need to prove your employer seriously breached your contract and that you resigned in response to it.

    Does that makes sense to you?

    If you try to claim two characteristics as a basis for being discriminated against (sex and disability) instead of one (disability) it is likely that your legal case will collapse and be thrown out before the tribunal or the defendant found "not liable" as a tribunal verdict, because it will be seen to claim for two characteristics, that you are doing a frivolous lawsuit.

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? 

    We ask that all members support statements with evidence from reputable sources, and refrain from presenting opinion as fact. You can read our house rules here if you need a reminder.


    I'm glad that you seem to have good legal representation @TG0601, and I hope that they're able to guide you through this process. Best of luck with your case :)

    You're not a burden @shellbell20, but I appreciate that you don't want to put too much strain on them. Was it this past Monday you were flying back?

    National Campaigns Officer, she/her

    Join our call for an equal future.
  • TG0601
    TG0601 Community member Posts: 51 Connected
    Thank you so much Tori. I’ll update you after my judicial mediation hearing next week. I don’t think my employers will settle before the main hearing in October, but we’ll see ?Tori_Scope said:
    Hi @innocent21,
    This sounds like a constructive dismissal. That's when employers try to fire someone based on discrimination, in a way that would break the anti-discrimination law (Equality Act 2010), but they can't be forthright about it because there could be repercussions, so they skirt around the rules (as a loophole) to create a reason for someone to be fired.
    This isn't quite right. ACAS outline that:
    An employee can make a constructive dismissal claim if they resign because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    Examples could include:
    • regularly not being paid the agreed amount without a good reason
    • being bullied or discriminated against
    • raising a grievance that the employer refuses to look into
    • making unreasonable changes to working patterns or place of work without agreement
    It could be because of one serious incident or a series of things.

    Citizens advice go on to explain that:

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal. This is called constructive dismissal.

    To be successful you'll need to prove your employer seriously breached your contract and that you resigned in response to it.

    Does that makes sense to you?

    If you try to claim two characteristics as a basis for being discriminated against (sex and disability) instead of one (disability) it is likely that your legal case will collapse and be thrown out before the tribunal or the defendant found "not liable" as a tribunal verdict, because it will be seen to claim for two characteristics, that you are doing a frivolous lawsuit.

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? 

    We ask that all members support statements with evidence from reputable sources, and refrain from presenting opinion as fact. You can read our house rules here if you need a reminder.


    I'm glad that you seem to have good legal representation @TG0601, and I hope that they're able to guide you through this process. Best of luck with your case :)

    You're not a burden @shellbell20, but I appreciate that you don't want to put too much strain on them. Was it this past Monday you were flying back?


  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    TG0601 said:
    Thank you so much Tori. I’ll update you after my judicial mediation hearing next week. I don’t think my employers will settle before the main hearing in October, but we’ll see ?Tori_Scope said:
    Hi @innocent21,
    This sounds like a constructive dismissal. That's when employers try to fire someone based on discrimination, in a way that would break the anti-discrimination law (Equality Act 2010), but they can't be forthright about it because there could be repercussions, so they skirt around the rules (as a loophole) to create a reason for someone to be fired.
    This isn't quite right. ACAS outline that:
    An employee can make a constructive dismissal claim if they resign because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    Examples could include:
    • regularly not being paid the agreed amount without a good reason
    • being bullied or discriminated against
    • raising a grievance that the employer refuses to look into
    • making unreasonable changes to working patterns or place of work without agreement
    It could be because of one serious incident or a series of things.

    Citizens advice go on to explain that:

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal. This is called constructive dismissal.

    To be successful you'll need to prove your employer seriously breached your contract and that you resigned in response to it.

    Does that makes sense to you?

    If you try to claim two characteristics as a basis for being discriminated against (sex and disability) instead of one (disability) it is likely that your legal case will collapse and be thrown out before the tribunal or the defendant found "not liable" as a tribunal verdict, because it will be seen to claim for two characteristics, that you are doing a frivolous lawsuit.

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? 

    We ask that all members support statements with evidence from reputable sources, and refrain from presenting opinion as fact. You can read our house rules here if you need a reminder.


    I'm glad that you seem to have good legal representation @TG0601, and I hope that they're able to guide you through this process. Best of luck with your case :)

    You're not a burden @shellbell20, but I appreciate that you don't want to put too much strain on them. Was it this past Monday you were flying back?


    Yes I am flying out next Monday, trying to get PCR test to fly is so complicated and expensive, but I need to see my husband. Work are still harassing me so I need to take a breather from all it as I am really finding their spitefulness hard to deal with. Just need calm and tranquility right now. Thanks for your kind words. x

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Listener
    edited June 2021
    I understand what you're trying to say @Tori_Scope

    because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal.

    You quote this term employment contract.

    However I do not think it would be constructive to debate whether a constructive dismissal only consists of an employer breaking or suddenly changing an employment contract, as you claim. As if somehow if an employer manipulates a situation to create a situation that would cause or lead an employee to eventually become fired, that somehow it's magically not a constructive dismissal if the scenario never involved breaking or breaching a contract, or if the behaviour doesn't meet any of the bullet point examples you quoted from the website.

    That would be arguing over semantics or splitting hairs. Maybe it does or doesn't, but to make the distinction about whether the employer's behaviour has to break or spontaneously change the employment contract, for it to be legally classed as constructive dismissal, I'd rather not discuss that.

    So if the employer doesn't break or change the employment contract while being manipulative in this fashion, then it's legally allowed? ;)

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
    What you are doing is looking at what the law and what the legal advice says, to then state that a person can use an employment tribunal to claim they were discriminated on multiple characteristics (in this woman's example 2) because the law and legal advice says that you can.

    In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise they are not. However the criminal and civil justice system isn't black and white in how it's applied, there are shades of grey.

    The fact of the matter is that discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove in a court of law or at a tribunal, and that most of the evidence that is used in such cases, it happens to be weak or circumstantial evidence, not concrete evidence. Most people who are discriminated at work in hiring and the workplace choose not to report it because they feel that having enough evidence to prove their case is difficult, with also the burden of proof required to guarantee a desired outcome is high, that it's not worth the effort to even take legal action in the first place.

    So with that said, it doesn't matter what the law says or what evidence is given, because most likely the evidence in employment tribunals are so weak that people will be able to use their own personal discretion to insert their own speculative opinions and personal biases into determining what things they believe and disbelieve, because the evidence given at the tribunal will be so weak anyway, so weak that they will be unable to make a clear cut judgement. Therefore overall, a lack of strong evidence creates a huge vacumn to be filled with speculative opinion and personal bias. The phrase "it's his word against yours" springs to mind.

    In courts and tribunals, people (eg. solicitors, lawyers, defendants) often do what's called a "character assassination" where they damage the reputation, character, cognitive abilities, finding discrepancies in their memory and trustworthiness of a person, in order to influence the outcome of a trial or tribunal. Although a character assassination isn't what people typically think of as evidence, all a person has to do is make another person LOOK bad, then that will cause the person who LOOKS bad to have their words carry less weight because the "seed of doubt" has been planted into people's minds.

    There has been lots of instances in the UK in courts and tribunals where people have been found innocent, guilty, liable or not liable, based on a character assassination influencing the verdict.
  • TG0601
    TG0601 Community member Posts: 51 Connected
    I am not claiming constructive dismissal as I am still employed by them. As for sexual discrimination that is not part of my claim either. I was simply  saying that it could be. I’m sure my solicitor will decide if legally he wants to add that to my case. I have previously won a tribunal, 30 years ago, based on two characteristics. So I am actually a fact that states it can & has been done without a case collapsing. Iinnocent21 said:
    I understand what you're trying to say @Tori_Scope

    because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal.

    You quote this term employment contract.

    However I do not think it would be constructive to debate whether a constructive dismissal only consists of an employer breaking or suddenly changing an employment contract, as you claim. As if somehow if an employer manipulates a situation to create a situation that would cause or lead an employee to eventually become fired, that somehow it's magically not a constructive dismissal if the scenario never involved breaking or breaching a contract, or if the behaviour doesn't meet any of the bullet point examples you quoted from the website.

    That would be arguing over semantics or splitting hairs. Maybe it does or doesn't, but to make the distinction about whether the employer's behaviour has to break or spontaneously change the employment contract, for it to be legally classed as constructive dismissal, I'd rather not discuss that.

    So if the employer doesn't break or change the employment contract while being manipulative in this fashion, then it's legally allowed? ;)

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
    What you are doing is looking at what the law and what the legal advice says, to then state that a person can use an employment tribunal to claim they were discriminated on multiple characteristics (in this woman's example 2) because the law and legal advice says that you can.

    In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise they are not. However the criminal and civil justice system isn't black and white in how it's applied, there are shades of grey.

    The fact of the matter is that discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove in a court of law or at a tribunal, and that most of the evidence that is used in such cases, it happens to be weak or circumstantial evidence, not concrete evidence. Most people who are discriminated at work in hiring and the workplace choose not to report it because they feel that having enough evidence to prove their case is difficult, with also the burden of proof required to guarantee a desired outcome is high, that it's not worth the effort to even take legal action in the first place.

    So with that said, it doesn't matter what the law says or what evidence is given, because most likely the evidence in employment tribunals are so weak that people will be able to use their own personal discretion to insert their own speculative opinions and personal biases into determining what things they believe and disbelieve, because the evidence given at the tribunal will be so weak anyway, so weak that they will be unable to make a clear cut judgement. Therefore overall, a lack of strong evidence creates a huge vacumn to be filled with speculative opinion and personal bias. The phrase "it's his word against yours" springs to mind.

    In courts and tribunals, people (eg. solicitors, lawyers, defendants) often do what's called a "character assassination" where they damage the reputation, character, cognitive abilities, vividness of their memory and trustworthiness of a person, in order to influence the outcome of a trial or tribunal. Although a character assassination isn't what people typically think of as evidence, all a person has to do is make another person LOOK bad, then that will cause the person who LOOKS bad to have their words carry less weight because the "seed of doubt" has been planted into people's minds.

    There has been lots of instances in the UK in courts and tribunals where people have been found innocent, guilty, liable or not liable, based on a character assassination influencing the verdict.

  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    I understand what you're trying to say @Tori_Scope

    because they think their employer has seriously breached their employment contract.

    If your employer has done something that seriously breaches your contract, you might be able to resign and make a claim to an employment tribunal.

    You quote this term employment contract.

    However I do not think it would be constructive to debate whether a constructive dismissal only consists of an employer breaking or suddenly changing an employment contract, as you claim. As if somehow if an employer manipulates a situation to create a situation that would cause or lead an employee to eventually become fired, that somehow it's magically not a constructive dismissal if the scenario never involved breaking or breaching a contract, or if the behaviour doesn't meet any of the bullet point examples you quoted from the website.

    That would be arguing over semantics or splitting hairs. Maybe it does or doesn't, but to make the distinction about whether the employer's behaviour has to break or spontaneously change the employment contract, for it to be legally classed as constructive dismissal, I'd rather not discuss that.

    So if the employer doesn't break or change the employment contract while being manipulative in this fashion, then it's legally allowed? ;)

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
    What you are doing is looking at what the law and what the legal advice says, to then state that a person can use an employment tribunal to claim they were discriminated on multiple characteristics (in this woman's example 2) because the law and legal advice says that you can.

    In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise they are not. However the criminal and civil justice system isn't black and white in how it's applied, there are shades of grey.

    The fact of the matter is that discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove in a court of law or at a tribunal, and that most of the evidence that is used in such cases, it happens to be weak or circumstantial evidence, not concrete evidence. Most people who are discriminated at work in hiring and the workplace choose not to report it because they feel that having enough evidence to prove their case is difficult, with also the burden of proof required to guarantee a desired outcome is high, that it's not worth the effort to even take legal action in the first place.

    So with that said, it doesn't matter what the law says or what evidence is given, because most likely the evidence in employment tribunals are so weak that people will be able to use their own personal discretion to insert their own speculative opinions and personal biases into determining what things they believe and disbelieve, because the evidence given at the tribunal will be so weak anyway, so weak that they will be unable to make a clear cut judgement. Therefore overall, a lack of strong evidence creates a huge vacumn to be filled with speculative opinion and personal bias. The phrase "it's his word against yours" springs to mind.

    In courts and tribunals, people (eg. solicitors, lawyers, defendants) often do what's called a "character assassination" where they damage the reputation, character, cognitive abilities, vividness of their memory and trustworthiness of a person, in order to influence the outcome of a trial or tribunal. Although a character assassination isn't what people typically think of as evidence, all a person has to do is make another person LOOK bad, then that will cause the person who LOOKS bad to have their words carry less weight because the "seed of doubt" has been planted into people's minds.

    There has been lots of instances in the UK in courts and tribunals where people have been found innocent, guilty, liable or not liable, based on a character assassination influencing the verdict.
    It's quite obvious that you are educated within the judicial system or have some experience representing yourself or others. However, what happens when you do have concrete evidence, where it is actually all in writing? 

    I totally expect a character assassination as the reason most people make claims in the first place is because they are unfortunate to  work for unscrupulous bosses/companies. My ex company is positively starting their vindictive behaviour's already and they are not even aware that I am taking the case to court.

    I wont deny that I am scared, but if I don't do something regarding it i.e. take action then how will it ever change and how will the disability community ever have rights in place, rights that have been fought for.  I also understand some of your sentiment to an extend, but I feel it would be must more beneficial to us if you would just say the positives of the case/cases rather than what might or could happen. I know you are trying to be helpful, but it making me wonder if there is any justice to be had in court.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Listener
    Well if you have concrete evidence then it should be much easier to prove.

    @TG0601 You have mentioned me 3 times in this thread using the quote block but there is no corresponding comment from you underneath the quotes. Are you using your phone to make posts here?
  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    Well if you have concrete evidence then it should be much easier to prove.

    @TG0601 You have mentioned me 3 times in this thread using the quote block but there is no corresponding comment from you underneath the quotes. Are you using your phone to make posts here?
    I think @TG0601 just quoted the text and then put their answer to you above the text.
  • shellbell20
    shellbell20 Community member Posts: 260 Pioneering
    Well if you have concrete evidence then it should be much easier to prove.

    @TG0601 You have mentioned me 3 times in this thread using the quote block but there is no corresponding comment from you underneath the quotes. Are you using your phone to make posts here?
    With my case most of the correspondence and what I perceive to be blatant discrimination is via email. Now they are also withholding my wages, it seems a daily occurrence of harassment and I left nearly 2 weeks ago.  It's all very immature and spiteful.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Listener
    I think @TG0601 just quoted the text and then put their answer to you above the text.
    I don't see it there either.

Brightness