Updated to include information on Michalak v General Medical Council and others, in which the Supreme Court held that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a discrimination claim against the General Medical Council.
In Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker  IRLR 394 EAT, the EAT held that, for a claim of harassment to succeed in a case involving the protected characteristic of disability, it is not enough for the alleged harassment to be "related to" disability in a general sense. The claimant must actually have a disability to bring the claim.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee could not claim for harassment on the ground of disability where he had not proved, but merely asserted, that he has a disability.
Employers that fail to use common sense when dealing with disabled employees will fall foul of discrimination law, as a well-known fitness chain found to its cost in this case.
The claimant alleged that she had been harassed and victimised when the theatre in which she worked changed its shift practices so that she could no longer simply turn up to work each time a show was on and be given work, which had an impact on her ability to care for her disabled husband.
This week's case roundup, covering redundancy and disability discrimination.
The EAT has hinted that the House of Lords should make a clear ruling regarding discrimination of ex-staff under the DDA. By Nicholas Moore, head of employment at Osborne Clarke.
The law on post-termination victimisation has been thrown into further confusion following a ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to disability-related victimisation.