Gutierrez v Newcastle Utd disability discrimination case: the wider implications for sport

Published 03 May 2016 By: Carol Couse, Richard Santy

Football player showing tricks

Carol Couse, a Senior Consultant at Mills & Reeve, led the team that acted for Jonas Gutierrez in the matter.  The team also included employment Partner, Richard Santy, Associate, Andrew MacDonald and Sports Law Executive, Tiran Gunawardena.

 

In what could prove to be a landmark employment law decision for athletes in the UK, Jonas Gutierrez (“the Player”) won a disability discrimination claim against his former club, Newcastle United Football Club (“the Club”), after he successfully argued that the Club had discriminated against him due to his cancer diagnosis.

This article will provide an overview of the tribunal’s decision, outline what made this case unusual in the context of employment related disputes in professional football in the UK and touch upon the possible wider repercussions for sport generally. 

 

Facts

After originally signing for the Club in July 2008, the Player signed a new four-year contract with the Club (“the Contract”) in September 2011.  The Contract contained a clause providing for an automatic one-year extension (“the Extension Clause”) of the Contract if the Player started 80 Premier League games during the four-year term.

The Player was a regular first team player of the Club for 5 years. However, in Summer 2013, the Player was diagnosed with testicular cancer and required an operation to remove his testicle. He claimed that within a couple of weeks of his return to the Club after receiving treatment, the Club informed him that he was no longer a part of their plans and that he was free to search for a new club. The Club asserted that the Player had been informed before his cancer diagnosis that he did not have a future with the Club and this decision was taken on sporting considerations alone.

When the Contract ended in June 2015, the Player had started in 78 games, i.e. 2 short of the 80 required to trigger the Extension Clause. The Player claimed that his selection for first team Premier League matches had been manipulated to prevent the Extension Clause being triggered due to his cancer. The Player further claimed that he had been treated less favourably by the Club following his cancer diagnosis. In addition, the Club had discretion to extend the Contract but they chose not to do so.

The Player brought a disability discrimination claim against the Club at the Employment Tribunal and argued that the Club had discriminated against him due to his cancer diagnosis. In April 2016, the Employment Tribunal found in the Player’s favour. 

 

JonasGutierrezpotm

 

Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport

Register here

Already a member?

Username or email   Password   Remember Me     Forgot Login?   Register  

Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts

 

Related Articles

Author

Carol Couse

Carol Couse

Carol is a consultant in the sports team at Mills & Reeve LLP and has over thirteen years of experience in sports law, both in-house and in private practice.

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Richard Santy profile picture

Richard Santy

Richard is a partner in our employment law team, based in our Birmingham office. Richard's focus is on the commercial sector and, while I advise on all aspects of employment law, I have a particular focus on complex litigation. Over the years I have advised a number of high profile corporates including Debenhams, Kuehne + Nagel, Next Retail, One Stop Stores and two of the midlands’ biggest football clubs.

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.