Updated to include information on Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL, in which the ECJ held that temporary incapacity for work can constitute disability, and Unite the Union v Nailard, in which the EAT considered the union's liability for harassment by two of its officers.
We round up three recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments about discrimination. The ECJ has recently considered: temporary incapacity caused by a workplace accident in Barcelona; the recruitment age limit for Basque police officers; and survivors' pensions for same-sex partners in Ireland.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ordered the employment tribunal to reconsider whether or not a claimant's philosophical belief in the "proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector" is protected under the Equality Act 2010. Kate Hodgkiss explains the EAT's decision.
David Malamatenios is partner at Colman Coyle Solicitors. He rounds up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a reasonable adjustments claim by an NHS worker with severe phobias of blood and needles. Ryan Stringer explains this recent decision on reasonable adjustments for a disabled person.
David Malamatenios is a partner at Colman Coyle Solicitors. He rounds up the latest rulings.
UK laws preventing discrimination against people based on their size should be reformed, according to analysis of obesity discrimination made by an employment tribunal judge.
This tribunal decision concerned a director who made dismissive comments about an employee's medical condition instead of considering whether or not she had a disability. The tribunal found the employer had constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability and the comments were discrimination arising from her disability.
Lifting up to 25kg is a "normal day-to-day activity" when deciding whether or not someone is disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Imogen Noons explains a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision on the definition of disability.
In Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute  IRLR 465 EAT, the EAT held that type 2 diabetes does not automatically satisfy the definition of disability and that the steps taken by an employee to correct the effects of diabetes were not a "particular diet" and therefore did not constitute a measure that could be ignored for the purposes of assessing the likely effects of the (uncorrected) condition on his normal day-to-day activities.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination legislation.