EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. ‘There must be many cases in which the disabled person has been placed at a substantial disadvantage in the workplace, but in which the employer does not know what it ought to do to ameliorate that disadvantage without making enquiries. To say that a failure to make those enquiries would not amount to a breach of the duty imposed on employers by section 6(1) would render section 6(1) practicably unworkable in many cases.’ The Trust was in breach of the duty imposed on it by section 6(1).
The claimant appealed rejection of her claim for having been victimised for her disability, and the compensation awarded. Workmen were provided with dust masks as they demolished a nearby wall at work, but she had not been. She became unfit for full time work. Unsuccessful attempts were made to ease her back into work. The Trust’s officers had not considered whether she was to be considered disabled, and she was told to return to work or be dismissed. The Trust claimed that the Tribunal had put an improper gloss on the statute.
Held: The appeal failed. The attempted phased return to work did not mean that an assessment was not required. As to the need to make enquiries ‘A proper assessment of what is required to eliminate the disabled person’s disadvantage is therefore a necessary part of the duty imposed by section 6(1) since that duty cannot be complied with unless the employer makes a proper assessment of what needs to be done.’ The tribunal properly decided that: ‘her compensation will have to be discounted to reflect the possibility that an assessment might have established that no steps could reasonably have been taken to ameliorate her disadvantage.’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Keith
Citations:
EAT/755/02, [2003] EAT 0755 – 02 – 1403, [2003] UKEAT 0755 – 02 – 1403, [2003] IRLR 566
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Citing:
Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hay v Surrey County Council CA 16-Feb-2007
The claimant had been employed driving a mobile library. She came to suffer back problems, and was dismissed when the respondent said that she could not work within a library without the ability to lift, after she turned down a move to a different . .
Cited – Project Management Institute v Latif EAT 10-May-2007
EAT The Appellant is a qualifying body, subject to section 14 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Tribunal found that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment in the arrangements it made for sitting an . .
Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Distinguished – Bruce v Chamberlain, Addleshaw Goddard and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Mitchell v Seagate Technology Ireland NIIT 22-Sep-2008
. .
Cited – Morrison v Key Housing Association EAT 23-Aug-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited – Wheeler v Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd EAT 18-Oct-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Justification . .
Cited – T, Regina (on the Application of) v OL Primary School and Another Admn 18-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets EAT 8-Jun-2006
EAT The appellant was disabled. She was found to have been unfairly dismissed and the subject of three acts of disability discrimination. One of these was an alleged failure to consult which was treated as a . .
Cited – Metrobus Ltd v Cook EAT 9-Jan-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – reasonable adjustments
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
On the Claimant’s concession that the Employment Tribunal, not having being shown . .
Cited – Spence v Intype Libra Ltd EAT 27-Apr-2007
EAT The appellant who was disabled was dismissed after a long absence from work. He made various claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, all of which were rejected. He contended that the failure to . .
Cited – HM Prison Service v Johnson EAT 6-Aug-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less Favourable Treatment / Reasonable Adjustments / Justification
The Claimant was a prison psychologist who developed a depressive illness amounting to a disability within . .
Not preferred – Rider v Leeds City Council EAT 27-Nov-2012
rider_leedsEAT2012
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a Nursery Officer at Armley Moor Children Centre. She raised grievances against colleagues and she was seconded to another post away . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184371