All items: Less favourable treatment

• expand

  A v Hounslow London BC [2001] All ER (D) 128 (Jul) EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Risks of employing man with schizophrenia justified dismissal

    Date:

    17 December 2001

    In A v Hounslow, the EAT upholds a tribunal's decision that incalculable risks were presented by the employment of a man with schizophrenia as a laboratory technician at a school, in circumstances where he took no medication for his condition and had previously entertained fantasies of mass murder. The employer was justified in its decision to dismiss him upon the available information.

• expand

  Alvares v London Borough of Hounslow [1998] ET/2300651/97 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Dismissal of school technician with "mass murder fantasies" justified

    Date:

    1 September 1998

    In Alvares v London Borough of Hounslow a London South employment tribunal (Chair: C E Taylor) found that the dismissal of a schizophrenic who had "mass murder fantasies" was justified.

• expand

  Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd [1999] IRLR 604 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Proper approach to justification of discriminatory treatment

    Date:

    1 November 1999

    In judging whether or not the reason for discriminatory treatment is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial, so as to be justified within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, employment tribunals must carry out a balancing exercise between the interests of the disabled person and the interests of the employer, holds the EAT in Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd.

  • Balancing exercise necessary

    Date:

    1 September 1999

    In Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd the EAT has ruled that in applying the test of justification under s. 5(3) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal must carry out a "balancing exercise" between the interests of the disabled employee and the interests of the employer.

• expand

  Bragg v London Underground Ltd [1998] ET/2201786/97 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Transfer of hearing-impaired train driver unlawful

    Date:

    1 March 1999

    In Bragg v London Underground Ltd a London North employment tribunal (Chair: M H Don) found that a hearing-impaired employee was treated less favourably because of his disability when he was transferred.

• expand

  British Sugar plc v Kirker [1998] IRLR 624 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Redundancy assessment tainted by disability discrimination

    Date:

    1 November 1998

    A combination of past disability discrimination against a partially-sighted employee and his objectively unjustified assessment leading to his selection for redundancy entitled an employment tribunal to infer disability discrimination in that assessment, holds the EAT in British Sugar plc v Kirker.

  • DDA comparison

    Date:

    1 November 1998

    In British Sugar plc v Kirker (28 July 1998) EOR82C, the EAT holds that a like-for-like comparison is not required under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to determine whether a disabled person has been less favourably treated for a reason relating to their disability.

• expand

  Burns v G R F Financial Ltd [2003] ET/1802290/03 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 June 2004

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Catherall v Michelin Tyre plc [2003] IRLR 61 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Causation must be considered where employee chooses retirement over redundancy

    Date:

    23 May 2003

    In Catherall v Michelin Tyre plc, the EAT holds that where a disabled employee is given the option of redundancy or retirement and opts for the latter, it is necessary for a tribunal to consider why the employee is accepting that option. If the option being put to the employee is not whether he or she wants to terminate his or her employment, but simply how it will be terminated, this in itself could amount to a dismissal.

• expand

  Clark v Novacold Ltd [1998] IRLR 420 EAT (3 reports relating to this case)

  • Comparator for disabled employee

    Date:

    1 September 1998

    In Clark v Novacold Ltd the EAT has ruled that the proper comparator where a disabled person is dismissed for absence related to their disability is someone who is off work for the same amount of time, but for a reason other than disability.

  • Disability discrimination: Identification of disabled person's comparator

    Date:

    1 July 1998

    The treatment of a disabled person who was dismissed because he was unable to perform all his contractual duties should have been compared with that of a person who was unable to fulfil all the requirements of his job for a reason other than disability, holds the EAT in Clark v Novacold Ltd.

  • Pool for comparison

    Date:

    1 December 1997

    In Clark v Novacold Ltd a Hull industrial tribunal (Chair: D J Latham) held that, in the case of an employee who had suffered a back injury at work which made him disabled, and who had been dismissed, the correct comparison when determining whether he had received less favourable treatment should be with employees on long-term sickness absence rather than non-disabled employees.

• expand

  Clark v TDG Ltd t/a Novacold [1999] IRLR 318 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Disability discrimination does not require like-with-like comparison

    Date:

    1 May 1999

    The definition of "less favourable treatment" in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not require a comparison of the cases of different persons in the same, or not materially different, circumstances, holds the Court of Appeal in Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold).

  • DDA comparison

    Date:

    1 May 1999

    In Clark v TDG Ltd (trading as Novacold) (25 March 1999) EOR85A, the Court of Appeal has clarified the law as to the comparison to be made so as to determine whether a disabled person has been treated less favourably for a reason which related to his or her disability than others to whom that reason did not apply.

• expand

  Clatworthy v Unum Ltd [1997] IT/2302662/97 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Discrimination justified

    Date:

    1 June 1998

    In Clatworthy v Unum Ltd a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: R Peters) held that the dismissal of a disabled employee was justified where it was anticipated that he would need prolonged periods of absenteeism.