The parties had agreed to compromise the appeal on the basis that a new trial would be ordered. The EAT had to consider whether the settlement was appropriate.
Held: The employers had not accepted during his employment that he was disabled within the section. Having now accepted that he had been treated worse, the only issue was as to whether that treatment had been reasonable under 5(1)(b). The tribunal had held following Quinn that they could not claim proper consideration if they had not considered him disabled. Quinn does not now reflect good practice. The case of Callaghan was to be preferred. The tribunal had misdirected itself.
Peter Clark HHJ
[2002] UKEAT 1154 – 01 – 1804, 1154/01
Bailii, EAT
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Disapproved – Desmond A Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd EAT 10-Oct-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited – Callaghan v Glasgow City Council 2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.202727
