Urgent help needed to a wee quick question! :)

Hi everyone,

Hoping someone can help me with a quick question!

I've got an exam tomorrow for Employment Law in HR context. We've been given a case study as we're allowed one sheet of notes in with us, but there's one point that I'm really struggling with.

We've been told that a firm has had to make redundancies. One of the chosen peeps is a lady called Mary who's 27 and has 5 years service to her name. She's been off sick on full pay for the past 6 weeks and is expected to be off for a further 6 weeks while she undergoes tests for a serious medical condition. She was informed by letter on the same day that the decision was made to terminate her contract. She also got a cheque for £1000 as severance. The case study then goes on to explain how Mary and a couple of others are going for unfair dismissal and a solicitor has written to the company looking for a 20 grand payout.

Now, I know that she should have had the consultation period and everything that goes with it - alternative employment etc and that she is entitled to a weeks pay for every year she's worked as she's been there longer than 2 years.

The bit I'm unsure about is that the case study also mentions that she has been too ill to find another job. They wouldn't put this in if they weren't looking for something on it!! My feeling is that because she is unable to mitigate her loss, she may be entitled to a higher payout from the tribunal. Am I on the right lines here or am I way off? Is this the whole 25% extra that tribunals can aware in some circumstances?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
Thank you!
JT
xxx

Oh dear - cheating by finding someone else who knows the answer and some dodgy law in there towards the end. Lucky for you I am feeling charitable - although I do hope you are a long way off qualifying for anything that requires you to use these skills for real!

Someone is off ill for 6 weeks with a serious medical condition, will be off 6 more at least - because she is still undergoing tests, and the prognosis has not yet been confirmed. The employer was required under the Equality Act (or the DDA if before last October - judging by the redundancy payment is was quite some time ago!) to consdier whether this was a disability and whether (a) the criteria applied should take due account of a potential disability and (b) that they were not acting in a discriminatory way.

The solicitor is dreaming - he'd need a very good case to get £20k. But if he can prove that she is unable to mitgate her loss the award would be higher. However it has nothing to do with uplift - uplift is entirely separate and may be awarded when an employer has acted in a deliberately planned unlawful way, or really pissed off the tribunal Chair with his bad manners and annoying ways.

Please let me know if I passed!

Thanks SarEl. I'm not reeeeally cheating I've been searching for an answer to this everywhere but couldn't find one so thought I'd ask some uber intelligent peeps if they could help me! lol

I don't know what the questions are going to be, I'm just covering all of my bases. I'm not doing a Law degree - I'm doing Business & Management with a specialisation in Finance. But anyway! Thank you for your help, that was the answer I was hoping for! I'll dedicate my A to you! lol
JTxxx

Thank you Lord

Aww dude - that's a bit harsh! I was only asking to clarify one point!! LOL
JT
xxx

Female? Dudette? And you haven't seen what they are churrning out of law school these days!

Hahaha! Must admit though, I've been tempted to switch from B&M to law. Get ready for me!!!! hahaha!
xxx