Tribunal's assessment of disability was unfair

This report relates to 7 case(s)

• expand disabled

  Bhatt v London Borough of Hounslow [2001] Emp LR 755 EAT (0 other reports)
• expand

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

  • Devil in the detail

    Date:

    1 March 2002

    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

  • 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

  De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324 EAT (1 other report)

  • Justifiable discrimination

    Date:

    1 August 2001

    A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal means that, in certain circumstances, discrimination against the disabled may be justifiable.

• expand

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

  • Devil in the detail

    Date:

    1 March 2002

    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

  • 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.

• expand

  Hamill v Strong & Co Ltd EAT/1179/99 (1 other report)

  • Constructive dismissal: Fundamental breach and "last straw" principles revisited

    Date:

    15 June 2001

    An employment tribunal was "hopelessly confused" between issues of constructive dismissal, which depend upon an assessment of whether or not the employer is in material breach of an employee's contract of employment, and issues of fairness, which arise when the employer effects a dismissal for a potentially fair reason within s.98 of the Employment Rights Act, the EAT holds in Johnstone v W Wilson & Sons.

• expand

  Sellers Arenascene Ltd v Connolly [2001] IRLR 222 CA (1 other report)

  • Employment status: Controlling shareholder in company was its employee

    Date:

    15 March 2001

    In Sellers Arenascene Ltd v Connolly, the Court of Appeal holds that a person with a controlling shareholding in a company of which he was a director was an employee of that company.

• expand

  Silvey v Pendragon plc [2001] IRLR 685 CA (1 other report)

  • Damages: Damages were payable for accrued pension rights lost as a result of unlawful termination

    Date:

    1 July 2001

    An employee who was summarily and wrongfully dismissed 12 days before his 55th birthday, albeit with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, was in principle entitled to claim damages made up of the amount that he would have been paid but for the employer's repudiatory breach of his contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Silvey v Pendragon plc.