The employee developed a series of headaches. He was off work for many weeks, and the company cut his sick pay. He claimed disability discrimination. The company claimed he was not being paid because he was not at work, the company having exercised its discretion to stop payment of sick pay generally. The correct question … Continue reading London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood: EAT 18 Sep 2001
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to accommodate her disability, that they had treated her less favourably for reasons relating to her disability; and in the second case presented in 2000 that … Continue reading Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council: EAT 19 Aug 2003
An employer dismissing an employee for sickness absences, and who was unaware that the sickness had come to be a disability, did not discriminate under the Act. The reason for the dismissal was to be looked for in the mind of the employer. Citations: Gazette 08-Jul-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998, Times 12-Mar-1998, [1998] IRLR 233 Statutes: Disability … Continue reading O’Neill v Symm and Co Ltd: EAT 10 Jun 1998
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for discrimination. The employer contended that she had not been dismissed within the section. Held: There had been conflicting … Continue reading Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle: CA 8 Jul 2004
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Exclusions/jurisdictionsThe Employment Judge did not err in finding that the Appellant, a volunteer worker with the CAB, was not entitled by the DDA to claim disability discrimination. The Government is not in breach of the Framework Directive in this regard, and s4(2)(d) and s68 of the DDA do not fall to be … Continue reading X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another: EAT 30 Oct 2009
Race discrimination which took place after a dismissal was not unlawful within the section, since that first required the context of employment, and after the dismissal, the applicant was no longer in that employment. The natural meaning of the phrase ’employed by him’ in section 4 (2) was confined to persons employed at the time … Continue reading Post Office v Adekeye: CA 13 Nov 1996
The case concerned the applicability of the race and disability discrimination law to appointments to statutory offices, particularly as to whether any remedy was provided for infringement. It was suggested that such appointments did not constitute . .