Adjusting to disability
This report relates to 3 case(s)
-
expand
McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd [2002] IRLR 711 CA
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 10 January 2003
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.
-
- Date:
- 24 September 2002
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.
-
expand
Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey [2002] IRLR 235 EAT
(4 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 1 September 2002
A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progessive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
-
- Date:
- 25 June 2002
A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progressive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
-
- Date:
- 15 April 2002
In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that a claimant diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.
-
- Date:
- 1 April 2002
In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey (10 December 2001), the EAT holds that an applicant who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not a disabled person within the meaning of the statutory definition because he had not established that the condition was likely to have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
-
expand
Vicary v British Telecommunications plc [1999] IRLR 680 EAT
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 1 November 1999
In Vicary v British Telecommunications plc, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal's conclusion that a woman did not have a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was perverse.
-
- Date:
- 1 September 1999
In Vicary v British Telecommunications plc the EAT has emphasised that it is for the employment tribunal rather than for an expert medical witness to determine what is a "normal day-to-day activity" and what is a "substantial" effect.
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.
View the full article today
Register to read this article
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in