Editor's message: People with disabilities are protected in the workplace against discrimination, harassment and victimisation because of their disability. The protection covers actual and prospective employees, and ex-employees.
An important and unique feature of disability discrimination law is the duty to make reasonable adjustments. One of the situations in which the duty is triggered is where an employer adopts a rule or practice that subjects a disabled person to a substantial disadvantage. Under the duty, employers must take reasonable steps to remove that disadvantage.
You may do this by, for example, allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person; changing his or her hours or place of work; or modifying disciplinary or grievance procedures. A failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments constitutes disability discrimination.
There is no qualifying period of employment for an individual to bring a claim of disability discrimination to an employment tribunal and no ceiling on the amount of compensation that can be awarded if a claim is successful.
Fiona Cuming, employment law editor
Updated to reflect that the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey.
In Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal decision that a police constabulary had directly discriminated against an officer because of its perception that her that her medical condition could develop into a disability in the future.
In Kelly v Royal Mail Group Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a long-serving employee's dismissal for frequent absences in accordance with the employer's attendance policy was harsh but fair.
Updated to include information on Aston v The Martlet Group Ltd, in which the EAT considered the test for establishing post-employment victimisation.
In Owen v Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal held that refusing to allow a disabled employee to undertake an overseas posting due to medical concerns did not amount to direct disability discrimination.
Many men and women still view menstruation as a taboo topic and feel uncomfortable talking about periods, even though they affect 51% of the UK population at some point in their life. Natalie Taylor looks at whether period pain can constitute a disability and at ways employers can support women with more severe symptoms.
In Linsley v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer's discretionary car parking policy was a relevant factor to be taken into account in determining the issue of reasonable adjustments, as was the particular disadvantage suffered by the employee, namely the stress of searching for a parking place.
Darren Newman discusses tricky sickness absence related issues, including the relationship between sickness absence and disability discrimination, and the steps you can take to support an employee's return to work.
In Flemming v East of England Ambulance Services NHS Trust, an employment tribunal held that an NHS Trust discriminated against a mentally ill employee by dismissing him for gross misconduct following his failure to attend a sickness absence review meeting and occupational health appointments.
Equality is high on the agenda of most NHS employers. As well as being subject to the gender pay gap reporting regime, NHS employers are required to comply with an equality standard in relation to race, and from April 2019 will be required to comply with a standard on disability. Nicky Green from law firm Capsticks explores what the standards mean for NHS employers.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to disability discrimination.