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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
In Asda Stores Ltd v Raymond, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal decision that the employer's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and to take reasonable care during the disciplinary process made the employee's dismissal unfair. The EAT also upheld the tribunal's ruling that his dismissal arose from his disability.
In Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another, the Supreme Court held that an employee, whose working hours had been reduced to accommodate his disability, was not treated "unfavourably" when his enhanced pension on ill-health retirement was based on his final part-time salary, rather than his full-time salary.
In Awan v ICTS UK Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an implied term of the contract of employment prohibited the employer from dismissing the employee for medical capability while he was entitled to receive long-term disability benefits.