Devil in the detail

This report relates to 4 case(s)

• expand

  Cave v Goodwin [2001] EWCA Civ 391 CA (3 other reports)

  • Tribunal's assessment of disability was unfair

    Date:

    1 July 2001

    When determining a disability discrimination claim, a tribunal should have considered the tasks the plaintiff could not, rather than could, perform. Plus, cases on constructive dismissal, disciplinary hearings and finding a race discrimination comparator.

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

    Date:

    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".

  • Disability discrimination: Arrangements relating to disciplinary hearing did not place disabled employee at "substantial" disadvantage

    Date:

    1 May 2001

    In Cave v Goodwin and another, the Court of Appeal confirms that an employer's refusal to allow a friend of an employee with a learning disability to accompany him at a disciplinary hearing did not place him at a "substantial" disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled persons.

• expand

  Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] IRLR 605 EAT (3 other reports)

  • Activities done by only one sex are "normal"

    Date:

    1 September 2001

    In Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the EAT has overruled an employment tribunal that rejected a claim that a woman was disabled, even though she could not put rollers in her hair and could not always use her right hand to apply make-up, on grounds that neither was a "normal day-to-day activity" because they are activities carried out almost exclusively by women.

  • Disability discrimination: Putting rollers in hair and applying make-up are "normal day-to-day activities"

    Date:

    15 July 2001

    In Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the EAT reverses an employment tribunal's decision that a woman with an impairment of her right hand, constituting a weakness of some of the muscles required for its full function, did not have a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  • Tribunal's assessment of disability was unfair

    Date:

    1 July 2001

    When determining a disability discrimination claim, a tribunal should have considered the tasks the plaintiff could not, rather than could, perform. Plus, cases on constructive dismissal, disciplinary hearings and finding a race discrimination comparator.

• expand

  Fu v London Borough of Camden [2001] IRLR 186 EAT (2 other reports)

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

    Date:

    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".

  • Disability discrimination: Justification depended on whether possibility of reasonable adjustments was properly considered

    Date:

    15 March 2001

    In Fu v London Borough of Camden, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal erred in law in not asking itself to what extent, if at all, an employee's medical condition, which had resulted in her long-term absence from work, so supervened the possibility of reasonable adjustments that her employer was justified in not making them.

• expand

  Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush [2001] IRLR 611 CS (2 other reports)

  • Work activities to be taken into account

    Date:

    1 September 2001

    In Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush the Court of Session has ruled that evidence of the nature of an applicant's duties at work, and the way in which they are performed can be relevant to whether they meet the statutory definition of a disabled person.

  • Disability discrimination: Evidence of how "disabled" employees perform at work can affect their credibility

    Date:

    15 July 2001

    On the basis of the evidence led before an employment tribunal, and the tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility, its decision that she had a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was plainly right, holds the Inner House, Court of Session in Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush.