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 from Armley Hall at Red Hall. She also suffered from disability and was unable by reason of her disability to return to her post at Armley Hall. She had been able to work without problems at Red Hall. When the Claimant’s period of secondment at Red Hall ended the Respondent made it clear to her on a number of occasions over several months that she was required to return to her former post at Armley Moor. The Claimant maintained that the requirement that she return to that post placed her at substantial disadvantage as compared to other employees without her disabilities. She never returned to Armley Moor and was eventually dismissed on the grounds of capability [by reason of her disability]. At no stage did the Respondent offer her an alternative post or consider what reasonable adjustments might be made to enable her to return to work. The Employment Tribunal was in error to hold that as she never returned to Armley Hall the PCP of requiring her to return there had not been applied to her. The repeated requirement that she return to her post there, without consideration of alternative posts or there reasonable adjustments amounted to the application of the PCP.
The making of an assessment as to what reasonable adjustments might be made in respect of a disabled employee was not itself capable of amounting to a reasonable adjustment within the meaning of Sections 3(A) and 4(A) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1996. Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets [2006] IRLR 664 followed; Tarbuck is to be preferred to Mid-Staffordshire General Hospital NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566; HM Prison Service v Johnson [2007] IRLR 951; Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218, Smith v Salford NHS Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0507/10 applied.
Setrota CQ J
[2012] UKEAT 0243 – 11 – 2711
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1996 3(A) 4(A)
England and Wales
Citing:
Not preferred – Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT 4-Mar-2003
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 . .
Preferred – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.466344