This is a preview.
To continue reading, register for free access now.
Register now
or
Log in
Devil in the detail
This report relates to 4 case(s)
-
expand
Cave v Goodwin [2001] EWCA Civ 391 CA
(3 other reports)
-
- 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.
-
- 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".
-
- 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)
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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)
-
- 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".
-
- 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)
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
The complexities of the Disability
Discrimination Act make it easy to slip up in practice. There are areas in which
occupational health and personnel practitioners really need to be on their toes.
By Paul D McMahon.
To continue reading, register for free access now.
Register now
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in