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.
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.
In Abadeh v British Telecommunications plc the EAT holds that, for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act, the question of what constitutes a "normal day-to-day activity" must be addressed without regard to whether or not the activity is normal to the particular applicant.
Where there is an unbroken chain of contracts between an individual and an end user, the end user should be regarded as the "principal" within the meaning of the contract-worker provisions contained in s.12 of the Disability Discrimination Act, the EAT holds in MHC Consulting Services Ltd v Tansell and others.
In Vicary v British Telecommunications plc, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal's conclusion that a woman did not have a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was perverse.
An employer could not reasonably have been expected to know, without being told by a job applicant suffering from photosensitive epilepsy, that the fluorescent lighting in the room in which she was interviewed might disadvantage her, holds the EAT in Ridout v T C Group.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.