Disability discrimination

New and updated

• Date:

  1 July 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Volunteers not "employees"

  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).

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round up: dismissals relating to common law duties

  This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering dismissals relating to common law duties.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

  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.

• Date:

  19 September 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Tendency to physical violence resulting from impairment is not an excluded condition

  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.

• Date:

  1 September 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge

  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.

• Date:

  15 August 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Employers liable for post-termination discrimination

  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.

• Date:

  18 July 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Individual with asymptomatic cancer "disabled" when treatment caused impairment

  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.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

  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.

• Date:

  23 May 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Cause of impairment irrelevant to whether disability exists at material time

  In Power v Panasonic UK Ltd the EAT holds that In deciding whether a complainant has a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal should consider whether the disability alleged is one that falls within the meaning of the Act, or whether it is in fact an impairment which is excluded by reason of Regulations issued under the Act from being treated as such a disability.

• Date:

  15 February 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Ongoing disciplinary proceedings does not suspend duty to make reasonable adjustments

  The fact that an employee was facing disciplinary proceedings which could have, and in fact did, result in her dismissal did not justify an employer's failure to make a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in HM Prison Service v Beart.