We round up three employment tribunal decisions in which large employers were found to have breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees under the Equality Act 2010.
In Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Equality Act 2010 cannot be interpreted to make an NHS trust vicariously liable for race discrimination for a patient's racially motivated attack on a mental-health nurse.
In Curless v Shell International Ltd, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal decision that an email that contained legal advice on how to avoid a discriminatory dismissal is protected by legal privilege because it was not advice to act in an "underhand or iniquitous way".
In Gray v Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that the employee's refusal to sign a copyright agreement was not due to any philosophical belief, but to her wish to achieve greater protection for her own creative work.
In López Ribalda and others v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights held that Spanish shop workers' right to privacy was not violated when a supermarket secretly installed hidden cameras to monitor employee thefts.
In Stolk v Hunts Foodservice Ltd and another, an employment tribunal awarded the claimant £11,028 after finding that pre-termination negotiations were admissible as evidence of pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
In Raj v Capital Business Services Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to overturn an employment tribunal decision that a female team leader's "misguided" attempt at encouraging a male employee by touching his shoulders while standing behind him was not sexual harassment.
In Conisbee v Crossley Farms Ltd and others, an employment tribunal held that vegetarianism is not a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010. However, the tribunal suggested that veganism is more likely to be protected under the Act.
In Birtenshaw v Oldfield, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal does not need to be satisfied that the adoption of lesser measures would have necessarily prevented the unfavourable treatment in a discrimination arising from disability claim.