The employment tribunal held that the claimant's former employer committed discrimination arising from disability after providing details of his sickness absence levels to a prospective employer and stating that it would not re-employ him.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, in assessing the employer's justification defence, the tribunal had failed to adopt a holistic approach and consider an age-related cap on redundancy payments within the broader context.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employee's disability-related absence was not the effective cause of the employer's decision to make the employee redundant. Rather, the absence was part of the context in which the employer identified the opportunity to restructure its business and eliminate the employee's post.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a requirement for a job applicant with Asperger's syndrome to complete an online multiple-choice psychometric test was indirectly discriminatory. The EAT also upheld claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Supreme Court has held that claimants are not required in indirect discrimination claims to explain why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, the affected group at a particular disadvantage.
The Supreme Court has held that an incremental pay structure that put Muslim chaplains in the prison service at a disadvantage compared to their Christian colleagues was indirectly discriminatory, but was justified.
The Court of Appeal has held that the decision to reduce officer head count "to the fullest extent" by forcibly retiring police officers with 30 years' service was justified.