In the case of Ozgul Coban v (1) Manes Partners Limited and (2) Alper Ozceylan the claimant has Crohn’s disease. She was diagnosed in 2005 as a teenager. In 2011 she had surgery, and since then has been on medication to manage her condition. She has been receiving regular Infliximab treatments for many years. Her evidence is that if she were to stop that treatment, within 2-3 months she would have “excruciating ulcers throughout [her] intestines throat and mouth. [She] would start to lose weight. [Her white blood cell count would drop significantly…”.
Aside from the need to attend regular medical appointments, and take medication, Crohn’s disease has an adverse effect on different aspects of the claimant’s life. At home, she finds it difficult to complete household tasks due to being in pain; she is forgetful about bills and shopping. Her husband deals with all household activities. The medication she takes for Crohn’s disease makes her drowsy, so cooking meals is difficult. She suffers from bladder and bowel incontinence. The claimant has to adapt her diet and routine because of her impairment. She needs time off work when she is unwell.
The Tribunal found that both the first and second respondent did have knowledge of the fact that the claimant has Crohn’s disease. The Tribunal also found the claimant’s evidence to be credible and believed that she told the second respondent about it during her job interviews.
The tribunal was given copies of text messages – which were translated from Turkish – between Coban and Ozceylan on 8 November 2021, during which Coban asked for the day off to attend hospital for her treatment.
Ozceylan told her to “get well soon” and added that he feels “sorry for [her] illness”, but he has a “business to run”. He said since her employment commenced eight weeks prior, she had taken eight sick days. Ozceylan acknowledged this was out of Coban’s control but added that he must “rely on someone” to be in the office.
He continued: “Of course, I show endless understanding, but our work should not be interrupted. I put a lot of effort into this work, my friends are also making a lot of effort. If we’re going to continue to be ‘on-and-off’, maybe let’s talk about charting a different path.”
Coban replied: “In short, I think you want me to leave the job. As you wish.”
The second respondent made very little effort to speak to the claimant about her condition, or to keep her when she said she wanted to leave. He made no effort to discuss with her if any measures could be put in place that might enable her to carry on working full time. Nobody else employed by the first respondent did so either. No investigation took place into the claimant’s condition and there was no formal discussion about the needs of the business.
The Tribunal found that the employer had treated the Claimant less favourably than it treated or would treat others, and the difference in treatment was because of the claimant’s disability.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
