EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Employment Judge erred in striking out the Claimant’s claim. The Claimant, a job applicant, was interviewed about a competency different to that which had been (mistakenly) set out in the advertisement for the post. The Employment Judge correctly proceeded on the basis that the Claimant, who was disabled, had been placed at a substantial disadvantage by a PCP applied by the Respondent. She ought not to have struck out the claim unless it was plain and obvious that there was no step which it was reasonable for the Respondent to take in order to prevent the PCP having that effect. It was arguable that there were steps which it was reasonable for the Respondent to take in order to prevent the PCP having that effect. Project Management v Latif Institute [2007] IRLR 57 considered. The Employment Judge also erred in her construction of section 18B(1)(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; HM Prison Services v Beart [2002] EAT/650/01 applied. Appeal allowed.
Judges:
Richardson J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0470 – 10 – 1402
Links:
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431867