In the Court of Appeal’s decision in Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme a disabled employee argued that he was being treated “unfavourably” and in a discriminatory way, because his enhanced pension was based on part-time salary rather than full-time. The Court of Appeal did not uphold his claim but, instead, found that the employee had been treated advantageously in comparison to his non-disabled colleagues because the only employees entitled to retire early and to receive an enhanced pension, were those who retired through ill-health and who were necessarily disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The employee appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal judgment, and the full judgment can be seen here.
Background
Mr Williams suffered from Tourette’s syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. He reduced his hours with his employer, Swansea University, in order to better cope with his condition. His pay was reduced accordingly. After his condition deteriorated further he took ill-health retirement at the age of 38.
He was allowed to take his accrued pension benefits immediately and without any actuarial reduction for early receipt, rather than having to wait until his normal pension date nearly twenty-nine years later. This meant that his benefits were significantly enhanced.
However, Mr Williams brought a disability discriminiation claim. He argued that by using his part time salary, rather than a full time equivalent, the calculation of the enhancement to his benefits for the period after he took ill-health retirement amounted to “unfavourable” treatment and therefore unlawful discrimination.
The EAT upheld this claim but the University successfully appealed this decision. It found that under the pension scheme rules the only employees entitled to retire early and to receive an enhanced pension were those who retired through ill-health and who were necessarily disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Because of this it also found that Mr Williams had been treated advantageously in comparison to non-disabled colleagues and the simple fact that he was working part time hours because of his disability could not be enough to justify claiming that the employer had been discriminatory in applying this.
The Supreme Court specifically considered what the treatment was and whether it was unfavourable to Mr Williams. It found that, because he would not have been entitled to any ill-health early retirement pension had he not been disabled, there was nothing intrinsically ‘unfavourable’ or disadvantageous about the University’s actions. Indeed, the Supreme Court found that he had been treated more favourably than someone without a disability by being allowed to take his pension early.
