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)
-
- 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
-
- 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
De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324 EAT
(1 other report)
-
expand
Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] IRLR 605 EAT
(3 other reports)
-
- 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
-
- 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.
-
expand
Hamill v Strong & Co Ltd EAT/1179/99
(1 other report)
-
- 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)
-
expand
Silvey v Pendragon plc [2001] IRLR 685 CA
(1 other report)
-
- 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.
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 dsmissal,
disciplinary hearings and finding a race discrimination comparator.
View the full article today
Register to read this article
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in