The employee had become diabetic. Upon his coming to require insulin, the employer undertook a new risk assessment, and restricted his duties as a driver. He claimed disability discrimination. At the tribunal, both employer and employee brought medical evidence.
Held: The employer’s duties under the Act had to be seen in the context of the employer’s wider duties of Health and Safety to others. Although the tribunal could otherwise make findings of fact, where the employer had carried out a proper risk assessment, and could not be said to have acted unreasonably in the light of that assessment, it was not for the tribunal to seek to judge between the experts for the two parties.
Times 05-Jun-2001, [2001] ICR 805, [2001] EWCA Civ 558, [2001] Emp LR 527, [2001] IRLR 384
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Jones v Post Office EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Post Office v Jones EAT 23-Mar-1999
. .
Cited by:
Cited – O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs CA 30-Mar-2007
The claimant suffered depression, and complained that the respondent’s reduction in her pay after long periods of sickness was discriminatory. She appealed decisions that it was not. She said that a reasonable adjustment would have been to continue . .
Cited – High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts EAT 10-Apr-2006
EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.84814