Justify This 2011 - 2015 (Diabetes, Discrimination, Disability, Ableism, Disablism)

By Nostaple Limited

If a multinational employer fired you for having diabetes because you would be off sick a lot in the future, what would you do? This is a true story of discrimination in the workplace, one ordinary person against a multinational employer, multinational legal firm, barrister, appeal courts, countries and international courts, in the form of a diary including emails, correspondence, and judgments. A modern day David and Goliath with many twists along the way.

Open the book and discover topics such as:

•disability (diabetic, diabetes) discrimination, disablism and ableism.
•diabetes type 1 and diabetes type 2.
•dismiss diabetes type one or two.
•direct and indirect discrimination.
•stereotypical assumption.
•insulin, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and hba1c.
•unfair dismissal.
•workplace layoff.
•firing, fired and redundancy.
•employment law.
•human right campaign.

Aimed at the following audiences:

•Anyone who suffers from diabetes.
•Anyone who suffers from a disability.
•Anyone who could suffer from any form of discrimination.
•Anyone who enjoys true stories.
•Anyone who enjoys true crime and inspecting evidence (on Nostaple website).

What would you have done in the same situation?

Additional topics/tags throughout this series include: diabetic, diabetes, disability, discrimination, disablism, ableism, employment, redundancy, layoff, fired, legal, law, unfair, workplace, dismiss, type, 1, 2, one, two, i, ii, firing, exploit, unfairness, corrupt, intolerance, outrage, unequal, above the law, justice, injustice, bigotry, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, law and order, discriminate, enterprise, work, business, corporation, civil, right, hba1c, claim, court, trial, crime, ketoacidosis, termination, grievance, sack, human, campaign.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Nostaple Limited
• Release date: May 30, 2017
• ISBN: 9781370275328

Nostaple Limited

Nostaple LimitedWe try to publish books that are different from the mainstream.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by Nostaple Limited

All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: This is not a work of fiction. As such, the publisher has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information within this book was correct at time of publication. The publisher does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from accident, negligence, or any other cause. The publisher will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to the publisher's attention at the earliest opportunity. Any views and opinions expressed herein are fully endorsed by the publisher. The publisher will, at the publisher's own expense, defend any claim based upon any lawsuit brought against any content contained within this book.

Licensing Note: No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Nostaple Limited, website click here.

First Edition

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

The Justify This series of books is a blow by blow account of one person's true story of alleged discrimination in the workplace, leading to legal cases against a multinational employer and international countries, through local courts, national courts, international courts, and the United Nations.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 1

Those who commit injustice bear the greatest burden.

- Hosea Ballou, 1771-1852

In 1966, I, Kenneth Robert McAlpine, was diagnosed with type one diabetes aged eighteen months. Despite having to inject myself with insulin twice a day, I had managed to obtain a degree in engineering and a master’s degree in computing, but for the last two years had been unemployed and fighting an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim in the Tribunal system.

During the last two years of working at Oracle, I had worked as an On Demand Service Delivery Manager, known as an oSDM, and was the seventh longest serving oSDM in a team of fourteen. I had worked with three other oSDMs on two of the largest accounts in Europe Middle East and Africa, The Environment Agency and General Electric accounts, which amounted to approximately sixty percent of the work covered by the fourteen oSDMs. As I was the only oSDM working simultaneously on both of these very large accounts, I asked my manager and director in December 2005 to be taken off one of the two accounts, as the workload and work conflicts were affecting my health.

In April 2006, unknown to myself, my manager, Phil Snowden, sent an email to a senior director, which Human Resources was copied on, and which read:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06? If a meeting to discuss this is the best option to move this forward, then please let me know, and I will organise such a meeting."

To which a Senior Human Resources manager, Catherine Temple, replied:

"As Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing (ie: no requirement for back office in the OSDM team). I have no timescales for when redundancies will be actioned at the moment, but assume it will be anytime around end FY06/beginning FY07."

I had taken just two days sick leave in the previous two years, the average person in the UK takes eleven days sick leave every year.

Towards the end of May 2006, I received a phone call from Phil Snowden to attend a meeting at the nearest office. At this meeting, with a senior director I had never met, I was informed I had been provisionally selected for redundancy. I was officially made redundant just over a month later.

I lodged a claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination with the Employment Tribunal in August 2006. During the next six months, the respondent would alter their original response a number of times, as they realised how much evidence I had to dispute previous attempts to discredit me. In other words, they were fishing for information before finalising their story.

It was also no surprise that I had received two offers to settle this before it went to a full Tribunal hearing, but both offers were below or around what I could expect for unfair dismissal alone, and the amount a Tribunal can award in discrimination claims is unlimited. So it was prudent to refuse both offers.

One thing about multinational companies and multinational legal firms is that there is no shortage of cash, so it was not a surprise when I learned that the respondent would be represented by a London Barrister at the Tribunal hearing.

To my surprise, part of the discrimination claim referred to as reasonable adjustments was thrown out at a Pre-Hearing Review in March 2007. I requested a review that was not granted, and then appealed the decision to Appeal Tribunal.

There was also a sist for mediation for fifty-one days, requested by the respondent, to allow the respondent and myself to try and mediate and reach a settlement. The respondent did not mediate during the whole fifty-one days.

At numerous points before the hearing, I had applied to the Tribunal for a default judgment or for the respondent to be debarred from the proceedings for various reasons.

Shortly before the main hearing was due to commence in early July 2007, there were problems with documents and evidence being altered, witness statements not being signed, and witness statements being far removed from the truth.

During the main discrimination hearing, which lasted three days, I read out my witness statement on the first day, the second day comprised of the respondent’s Barrister trying to discredit me in cross-examination, and the third day comprised of the respondent’s witnesses, my manager, Phil Snowden, my senior director, Nick Cooper, and senior human resources manager, Catherine Temple, as well as other witness statements.

The main discrimination judgment was dated the 13 September 2007. In the judgment that was delivered over thirty-eight pages, the Tribunal agreed with the story of the respondent that comprised mainly of four witness statements from witnesses employed by the respondent, despite hard factual evidence that disproved the story and the subsequent decisions made in the judgment.

The Tribunal had hard factual evidence that showed I had the job title Service Delivery Manager, had worked with the Global Service Desk and Customer Incident Managers (CIMs) for two years, I had taken just two days sickness absence in the previous two years, and also had hard factual evidence supplied by the respondent of disability discrimination that stated:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

"As Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing...."

Despite this hard factual evidence, the respondent managed to create a story whereby I was in a one-off job role, that a senior manager I had never met before, Malcolm Thompson, placed me on the redundancy list, and who never knew of my diabetes. Malcolm Thompson never attended the Tribunal.

I also raised concerns before, during and after the Tribunal that the respondent had altered documents to suit their story, but the judgment stated that I was not a credible witness in many aspects of his evidence, and the Citizens Advice Bureau stated that this was the Tribunal calling me a liar. The Tribunal dismissed the concerns raised regarding altered documents:

We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions

The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal part of the claim:

We were satisfied the requirements of the respondent's business for employees to carry out the role the claimant did, had ceased or diminished with the introduction of the global service desk and CIMs. The claimant's role was redundant.

The Tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination part of the claim:

We were satisfied, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the reason for the claimant's selection for redundancy (the alleged less favourable treatment) was because the respondent's need for employees to carry out the limited oSDM role which the claimant performed, had ceased or diminished. The claimant had been unable to discharge the burden placed on him to show his selection for redundancy related to his disability, and in the circumstances that aspect of his claim must fail. We dismissed this claim.

After emailing Diabetes UK requesting help, I received an email reply on 10 October 2007 stating that Diabetes UK would pass it on to one of their lawyers who would act in a pro bono capacity and help me.

I immediately made contact with this pro bono lawyer in London and sent two lever arch folders full of witness statements and evidence as well as my story and where the various parts of this case were in the legal system.

The London lawyer, due to her background in healthcare and product liability litigation managed to get in touch with a lawyer in Glasgow who specialised in Employment Law and was willing to take my case on in a pro bono capacity.

Michael McLaughlin was the pro bono lawyer in Glasgow who was a senior partner in Biggart Bailli, a law firm with offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and I quickly had a three hour meeting to inform Michael of some of the details in this case, and to thrash out appeal points for the forthcoming reasonable adjustments hearing and the lodging of an appeal concerning the main disability discrimination appeal.

On 24 October 2007, I picked up the main disability discrimination appeal at Michael McLaughlin's Office and delivered it in person at the Employment Appeal Tribunal Offices in Edinburgh, a round trip of four hours, but worth every minute to make sure it was delivered in person.

The first point of this appeal concerned the emails written on 11 and 12 April 2006, which state that diabetes will result in long periods of absence in the future and to exit me from the business. This was direct disability discrimination as it was less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability.

The second appeal point again concerned the email of 12 April 2006 in that because this email states that I am to be exited from business some seven weeks before I was provisionally selected for redundancy, the redundancy process was a sham.

The third point of this appeal concerned witness collusion. Many of the witnesses had read each other’s witness statements, and as such could have tailored or fine tuned their story to match the stories of other witnesses.

The final appeal point stated that the 7 February 2006 Reduction In Force list had a column titled Required Exit Date that had a date filled in, and as such, termination of my employment was preordained some four months before redundancy consultation had started.

After my initial meeting with the pro bono lawyer, Michael McLaughlin, an appeal was sent to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning the reasonable adjustments part of my case.

The appeal focussed on one extremely important point, as the Tribunal had dismissed my reasonable adjustments case because I had not lodged a grievance, and as I was dismissed, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply because the statutory dismissal procedure should have been followed. The reasonable adjustments case was also not time barred, as it had been an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and was linked to my dismissal in July 2006 by the emails of 12 and 13 April 2006.

On 7 November 2007 I conducted my reasonable adjustments appeal hearing in front of Lady Smith who was acting as sole Judge in this hearing.

I outlined in my appeal that due to my reasonable adjustments discussion with my manager, Philip Snowden, in December 2005, and the reference to 'December' in the email which stated diabetes, future sickness absences and exit me from the organisation, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply as I was dismissed, and the reasonable adjustments claim could not be time barred as it was an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and ended with my dismissal in July 2006.

The Judge, Lady Smith, dismissed the appeal and agreed with the original Employment Tribunal decision that the statutory grievance procedure applied.

The respondent had applied for costs of £10,000, and on 11 January 2008, a costs hearing took place at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal. The respondent claimed that my conduct during the case had been unreasonable and that my allegation that documents had been altered should alone result in a costs order against me.

Michael McLaughlin outlined that I had not acted unreasonably, and if any party had acted unreasonably it was the respondent. It was also not unreasonable to state that documents had been altered when they had been altered.

The judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal would be sent out in writing in the near future.

During January and February 2008 I continued to contact as many organisations and people who could help me as possible, but continually met with rejections or dead ends.

On 15 February 2008, I finally received the judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal who had awarded expenses against me of £3,700, in effect fining me. An Employment Tribunal only awards expenses against a party in less than one percent of cases.

On 20 February 2008, after one month of trying to lodge an appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in time, I decided to take this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, as the Court of Session had sent me out three wrong forms and now wanted me to pay for lodging a late appeal that the Judges may not accept.

On 26 March 2008, I lodged an appeal against the award of £3,700 in costs against me to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was based solely on the grounds of perversity.

The first appeal point concerned the award of £3,000 for not taking legal advice, and as you can represent yourself at Tribunals, I simply asked where in the Employment Tribunals Constitution and Rules does it state that a claimant must take legal advice.

The second point of the appeal concerned the award of £700 for stating that the respondent had altered documents, and as the judgment had stated that the respondent had not deliberately altered documents, I simply asked why the term not deliberately altered had been used, as this implies the respondent had altered documents.

On 29 April 2008, myself, my family and three lawyers had travelled through to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing in front of Lady Smith alone, but we all learned ten minutes before the hearing was due to start that it had been cancelled.

Around two months later the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing on disability discrimination finally took place on 20 June 2008 with the judge Lady Smith sitting in judgement alone. This was a tense and terse hearing between the Solicitor, Michael McLaughlin, and Lady Smith, with the Solicitor, myself and family coming out looking shell shocked.

Early in August 2008, Diabetes UK sent me a letter clearly stating that they were unable to support me any further in my case.

On 12 August 2008, I lodged a reasonable adjustments case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights. This case was mainly based on the right to a fair hearing when the previous reasonable adjustment cases had been thrown out because a grievance had not been lodged when a grievance was not required to be lodged because it was a dismissal and the dismissal procedure should have been followed rather than the grievance procedure.

Two days later the Information Commissioner's Office sent me a review of my complaint against their original decision in which they explained that they agreed with the earlier decision made by the Information Commissioner's Office that I was not entitled to any redundancy information, so I was, therefore, unable to uncover whether redundancy information had been sent to the Insolvency Service or not, and therefore whether there had actually been a collective redundancy, or if it was just me that had been made redundant due to my diabetes. Around this time I was also looking to get representation from an Advocate (lawyer who has access rights in front of the highest judges in the highest court) for the appeal to the Court of Session, the highest court in Scotland, and paid for the services of law firm Hamilton Burns who requested the opinion of an Advocate.

On 18 August 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session, however, this is only a step that you have to go through to eventually appeal to the Court of Session, and doesn't mean that you cannot appeal.

Ten days later I received the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal judgement by Lady Smith on disability discrimination where she had dismissed all appeal points on the disability discrimination case and witness collusion, so now I had to appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session, which I now did.

On 6 November 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal heard my appeal against the costs of £3700 awarded against me at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal by judge Lucy Crone. This hearing was heard by the President of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, who was based in London, but had flown up because Lady Smith was unavailable.

Later that same month I received the Advocates opinion which was completely negative on the chances of any of the eleven appeal points succeeding at the Court of Session, and had to pay £1000 for the opinion in writing.

It was now 2009, and the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal issued a judgement by the president of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, The Honourable Mr Justice Elias, who stated that the appeal had failed. The reason given was that I should have taken the free legal advice offered and paid for by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and because I didn't, this was unreasonable behaviour punished by a £3000 fine. It has always been my argument, an argument that will never change, that no-one should, under any circumstance, accept legal advice from a lawyer paid for by your opponent. Whose interests would that lawyer really be representing?

On 10 February 2009 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session regarding the costs appeal, so I most definitely appealed anyway.

Over the next few months, I wrote a few letters to the Scottish Parliament but received no help with the explanation that they could not get involved in judicial decisions. I also started to question why on earth Oracle Corporation UK Limited could be represented at a hearing in the Inner House of the Court of Session when I was appealing a decision made in a judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal?

I also asked my Member of Parliament for help, and she wrote to various government departments and ministers, including the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom parliament and Minister for Community Safety in the Scottish parliament, but no help was offered or given.

On 29 May 2009, I attended a very short hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, where I had to represent myself against the Advocate Douglas Fairley who was representing Oracle Corporation UK Limited. The three judges heard Mr Fairley for most of this time and informed me if I understood what I had to do at the next hearing, to which I replied yes.

At the next hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, a two-hour hearing, Mr Fairley, acting for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, addressed the Court in support of his objection to the competency of the application for one and a half hours, and I spoke for around twenty minutes. Another hearing was scheduled for a full day hearing, date to be arranged.

The final full day hearing at the Court of Session took place on 27 January 2010. I spoke for most of this hearing and read out the law and merits of my appeal, which included eleven points on disability discrimination, altered and fabricated evidence, witness collusion and perjury. These appeal points were also based on UK Law as well as articles on the European Convention on Human Rights as the European Courts and appeals on conventions were almost my next step if this appeal failed.

The Court of Session judgement dismissed all eleven appeal points, including the disability discrimination part of the appeal.

I contacted the Equality and Human Rights Commission again, requesting help to take this appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but yet again was refused any help. During this time I also tried to find a Barrister by myself but could not find a Barrister to take this case on.

The law firm McGrigors, who had represented Oracle Corporation UK Limited at the Court of Session, started the process of claiming expenses for Oracle Corporation UK Limited from me for the costs incurred at the Court of Session during the various hearings.

At this point in time, I also started to contact the United Nations Enable organisation, an organisation to promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

Shortly after receiving the judgement from the Court of Session, I contacted the UK Supreme Court in London but was later informed that the UK Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination and unfair dismissal appeal.

Around this time I also started to contact international disability organisations to try and obtain representation for any appeals to any international bodies. Although I did not obtain any representation or any help to write any international appeals on any of the international conventions, I was able to ask a few questions of these international disability organisations.

I then sent a communication, another word for an appeal, to the European Court of Human Rights, against the United Kingdom, regarding my case and subsequent appeals through the United Kingdom legal system. This appeal was based on articles of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning, among others, discrimination and the right to a fair hearing. It was based on the disability discrimination I had suffered, and the altered and fabricated evidence, as well as witness collusion and perjury.

The Court of Session had a short ten minute hearing on expenses against me, which I did not attend, and subsequently awarded expenses against me, so I now had to pay the law firm McGrigors and Oracle Corporation UK Limited expenses for the various appeal hearings at the Court of Session.

I finally received the decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service, who found in favour of Lloyds, the underwriters of my home insurance policy, which should have covered legal representation and expenses during my whole case, but didn't.

Around this time I was informed by a neighbour that Sheriff Officers had been on my street looking for me, regarding payment of the Employment Tribunal award of costs, and the Court of Session award of expenses, although nobody knew the award of expenses at the Court of Session at this time, as no decision had been made by the Auditor of the Court of Session yet as to the amount of expenses. I was also appealing all awards of costs and expenses, and this was ongoing either at the Auditor of the Court of Session or the European Court of Human Rights.

I was also raising questions as to why Oracle Corporation UK Limited were represented by the law firm McGrigors at appeal hearings against a decision made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Inner House of the Court of Session.

A case was raised with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission against three lawyers at the law firm McGrigors and also the Auditor of the Court of Session. This case concerned why Sheriff Officers had been instructed to recover all costs and expenses awarded against me even although the Auditor of the Court of Session had not even made a decision regarding the amount of expenses that would be awarded against me, and also why Sheriff Officers were chasing these costs and expenses when there were still outstanding and future appeal hearings at the Auditor of the Court of Session and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission found that none of the lawyers, including the Auditor of the Court of Session, were guilty of any misconduct or offence.

The diet of taxation hearing (expenses hearing) was then heard by the Auditor of the Court of Session, who decided that Oracle Corporation UK Limited, represented by the law firm McGrigors, had won approximately £7,000.00 in expenses, which I had now to pay.

The European Court of Human Rights threw out my disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case against the United Kingdom, as well as my reasonable adjustments case, sitting in a single-judge formation, the single judge coming from Malta, part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth).

I paid the £7,000.00 to Oracle Corporation UK Limited via the law firm McGrigors.

Chapter 2

It was now 25 May 2011 when I sent the following communication (appeal) to the United Nations:

Procedure Invoked: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Date: 25 May 2011

I. Information on the Complainant

Provided name, nationality, date and place of birth and address.

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, being the sole author of this communication, submit this communication on my own behalf.

II. State concerned/Articles violated

State against which complaint is made:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Alleged Articles Violated:

Articles 4, 5, 8, 12, 22 and 27.

III. Exhaustion of domestic remedies/Application to other international procedures

Employment Tribunal

The claims made to the Employment Tribunal were unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under section 3A(1) and 3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act.

On 13 September 2007, the Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, including disability discrimination (Page 35).

Employment Appeal Tribunal

On 19 December 2007 and 28 August 2008, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal, including disability discrimination (Pages 74 and 86).

Court of Session

On 12 February 2010, the Court of Session dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, including disability discrimination (Page 95).

UK Supreme Court

On 12 February 2010, the UK Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision of the Court of Session, including disability discrimination (Page 97).

European Court of Human Rights

The application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 14 in conjunction with other Articles, and Article 6(1).

On 22 March 2011, the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible this application, including disability discrimination (Page 98).

IV. Facts of the complaint

Introduction

The Petitioner, acting as an individual, brings an individual communication relating to the United Kingdom under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention).

The United Kingdom, having signed the Convention on 30 March 2007, and ratified the Convention on 8 June 2009, and also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 26 February 2009, and ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 7 August 2009 without any reservations, thereby allowing individuals under the Optional Protocol, Article 1, to bring, and the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the United Kingdom jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the United Kingdom to the provisions of the Convention.

Chronology of Events

12 August 1964

Petitioner born in United Kingdom.

February 1966

Petitioner diagnosed as having Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1 diabetes).

8 November 1995

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 comes in to force in United Kingdom.

12 August 1998

Petitioner starts employment with Oracle Corporation UK Limited.

5 July 2004

Petitioner moves to On Demand as a Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) in the On Demand Service Delivery Manager team.

12 April 2006

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd states in email