An employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers do not have a duty to give full pay to disabled employees on long-term sick leave.

The EAT found that HM Revenue & Customs did not breach the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) by offering Mrs K O’Hanlon six months standard pay followed by six months half-pay.

Mrs O’Hanlon, who is clinically depressed, alleged this was either a failure to make reasonable adjustments as required by the DDA or unjustified disability discrimination.

Under reasonable adjustments the EAT held it “would be a very rare case indeed” where the duty would entail paying a disabled employee on long-term sick leave more than a non-disabled employee.

Paragraph 68 of the judgment says: “The implications of this argument are that Tribunals would have to usurp the management function of the employer, deciding whether employers were financially able to meet the costs of modifying their policies by making these enhanced payments…The Tribunals would be entering into a form of wage fixing for the disabled sick.”

The judgment also points out that the purpose of the DDA is to help disabled employees find jobs and integrate them into the workforce, “not to treat them as objects of charity” – providing long-term sick pay enhancements might act as a “disincentive” to them returning to work.

On the discrimination element the EAT held that it is insufficient for the employer to rely on “policy” as the reason for the treatment. The policy might say that the reason for reducing sick pay is because the employee has been off sick for more than six months but the reason for the absence was disability-related and is therefore discriminatory.

But economic reasons justify the reduction in sick pay. At paragraph 91 of its judgment the EAT said: “We think that the justification could simply be the fact that the employer considered it appropriate to pay those who attend work and contribute to the operation more than those whose absence prevents that.”