In Edmund Nuttall Ltd v Butterfield, the EAT holds that the tribunal erred in finding that the employee, who committed criminal offences of indecent exposure, had been discriminated against on grounds of disability.
In Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd, the EAT holds that anemployment tribunal which found that a complainant who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was disabled for the purposes of the DDA, had a tendency to violence as a direct result of that condition, and who had been treated less favourably on the grounds of that propensity to violence, had erred in further holding that he had not been discriminated against on the grounds of his disability.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
In McNichol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the employee had not established that he suffered either a physical or mental impairment within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd the EAT holds that an employee who suffered minor urinary incontinence as a result of surgery for prostate cancer was not thereby brought within the scope of the "progressive conditions" provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
It is the duty of the employer to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace in order that a disabled person can be successfully employed. Failure to do so can result in a claim for discrimination. The problem lies in determining what is a reasonable adjustment, and it is here that the OH professional can make a contribution, By Joan Lewis and Linda Goldman.
Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Charlotte Hamer, professional support lawyer in the employment pensions and benefits group at international law firm Stephenson Harwood, looks at the issues.
A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progessive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progressive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark (4 February 2002), the EAT holds that an applicant with a mental illness, who argued that her condition would have had a substantial adverse effect on her normal day-to-day activities were it not for medical treatment she was receiving, failed to fall within the definition of disability because she did not put forward medical evidence to support her claim.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination legislation.