Equality, diversity and human rights
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: indirect age discrimination; and homeworking arrangements.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: mobility clauses and "protected" whistleblowing disclosures.
In Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd, the EAT holds that anemployment tribunal which found that a complainant who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was disabled for the purposes of the DDA, had a tendency to violence as a direct result of that condition, and who had been treated less favourably on the grounds of that propensity to violence, had erred in further holding that he had not been discriminated against on the grounds of his disability.
In Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the burden of proof in indirect sex discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether a case is brought under Article 141 (previously 119) of the EC Treaty of Rome, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equal Pay Act 1970.
In Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 EAT, the EAT held that an employer's failure to carry out an assessment to enable a decision to be reached as to what steps would be reasonable to prevent a disabled employee or prospective employee from being at a disadvantage amounts to a breach of the duty of reasonable adjustment under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper and related cases the House of Lords interprets anti-discrimination legislation to mean that employees should be protected against certain acts of post-termination discrimination by their employer.
In MacDonald v AG for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School, the House of Lords holds that a homosexual who is dismissed or harassed because of his or her sexual orientation must be compared with a homosexual of the opposite gender for the purposes of establishing direct sex discrimination.
In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an individual suffering from urinary incontinence - not of itself a substantive "impairment" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - is nonetheless disabled under that Act where the incontinence was caused by surgery conducted as a standard treatment for the progressive condition of asymptomatic cancer.
In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.