Site icon swarb.co.uk

Bowers v William Hill Organisation Ltd: EAT 10 Jul 2009

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
On a pre-hearing concession by the Respondent that the Claimant was disabled, it was not relevant to consider whether the Respondent knew the condition was likely to last 12 months, the only issue being whether the Respondent knew she was disabled, as to which the Employment Tribunal found that it was artificial to say one department did and another did not, this being a composite employer. Judgment reversed and remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for remed

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0046 – 09 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedSecretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372604

Exit mobile version