This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Disability discrimination: No discrimination against epileptic job applicant

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Ridout v TC Group [1998] IRLR 628 EAT (2 other reports)

    • Interpreting the DDA - part 2: discrimination, justification and adjustment

      1 July 2001

      The meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) as it has been interpreted by the employment tribunals and the appellate courts is examined here in the second of a two-part series. Part One (EOR 94) looked at the meaning of "disability".

    • Trigger for DDA's adjustment duty

      1 November 1998

      In Ridout v TC Group (13 July 1998) EOR82D, the EAT rules that an employer was not in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act's duty to make a reasonable adjustment where it was reasonably unaware that any adjustment was required to the lighting in a room where an applicant with photosensitive epilepsy was interviewed.

An employer could not reasonably have been expected to know, without being told by a job applicant suffering from photosensitive epilepsy, that the fluorescent lighting in the room in which she was interviewed might disadvantage her, holds the EAT in Ridout v T C Group [1998] IRLR 628. Nor could the employer reasonably have been expected to anticipate any problems with the arrangements that it had made for the interview simply as a result of knowing that the applicant had what is a very rare form of epilepsy.