In Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA Case C-13/05, first case to come before it on the issue, the ECJ finds that "disability" within the Framework Directive is not to be equated with "sickness" and that discrimination solely on the grounds of sickness does not fall within the scope of the Directive.
In O'Hanlon v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs EAT/0109/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not require an employer to pay disabled employees on sick leave more than it pays non-disabled employees who are off sick.
In Edmund Nuttall Ltd v Butterfield, the EAT holds that the tribunal erred in finding that the employee, who committed criminal offences of indecent exposure, had been discriminated against on grounds of disability.
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.