In Williams v J Walter Thompson Group Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal was correct to decide that a blind employee suffered unlawful disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal when her employer failed to provide her with the specialist equipment and training necessary for her to carry out the IT work for which she was appointed.
In a hearing of three conjoined appeals (Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, 18 February 2005), the Court of Appeal considers the guidelines established in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (EOR 118) and sets out revised guidance on the burden of proof provisions in the discrimination legislation.
In Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 CA, the Court of Appeal held that putting an employee who was off sick for a disability-related reason on to half pay after a period of full pay was unjustified less favourable treatment where the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, which, had they been made, would have resulted in the employee's returning to work before she became liable to have her sick pay reduced.
In Archibald v Fife Council, the House of Lords holds that an employment tribunal misconstrued the scope of the employer's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent any of its arrangements from placing a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people who are not disabled.
Voluntary workers were not "employees" as defined in s.68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson (17 November 2003).