Hello, my name is Ben and it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today.
So just to clarify, the work you had booked would have gone to Eurosport, albeit via another production company, but they are refusing t take it?
So I take it you have lost out on this work as a result and they will not be paying you for it?
Whilst I understand the concerns about the channel replicating the same behaviour in the future, that would not necessarily be unlawful. They are nit preventing you from working for someone else, you are free to do so, but they just do not want to use any footage or commentary that you are included in. there is unfortunately nothing unlawful in that. They have the right to choose who they want to appear in their footage/commentary and they could very easily request from production companies that they do not use anything that involves you, or that it limits what you are involved with. You do not have the general right to provide the work and expect it to be accepted by the channel – you, as well as any other commentator, can provide you services for the commentary but in the end the channel can choose who to use and how much of their work they actually want. They are the ones that call the shots – they request the work and pay for it and they can decide whether they would prefer someone to do it or would rather avoid using someone. There would be some restrictions in their choice, for example in terms of discriminatory reasons, but in the absence of these it would not be unlawful. As an example, if they had requested that you are not to be used due to your gender, or age or race and so on – that could be discrimination and would be unlawful but if it is just a personal issue or even the fact you previously worked for them – that is not unlawful.
The criminal issue is not discrimination, but the mental health issue could be if it was serious enough to amount to a disability in law.
In the legal sense of the word, disability can have a broad meaning and there is no single list of medical conditions that qualify. Instead, to establish whether a person is disabled, they need to show that they meet the legal definition of a ‘disability’.
The Equality Act 2010 defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.
I will break this definition down:
If a person satisfies the above criteria, they will be classified as being disabled and will have automatic protection against discrimination, which means that they must not be treated unfavourably because of their disability. Therefore an outright refusal to work with you because of your disability could be unlawful and discriminatory but there must be a condition that amounts to a disability first and also that they cannot objectively justify their actions.
do you get the stutter when you commentate?
ok in that case they may not be able to objectively justify using that as an excuse - had you experienced this problem whilst commentating then they could state that it is not a desirable quality for a commentator and they could potentially use it as a reason not to you use your services but if that does not affect your work then it is unlikely
Please let me know if this has answered your original question or if you need me to clarify anything else for you in relation to this? Thanks
Hello please let me know if this has answered your original question or if you need me to clarify anything else for you in relation to this? I just need to know whether to close the question or not? Thanks
Hi, can you please let me know about the status of this question, it is still in my open queue, thanks
I can see you are accessing this thread daily but I am not getting any responses from you, can you please get back to me to confirm if you need me to keep this thread open or if your query has been answered? Thanks