EAT Disability Discrimination: Reasonable Adjustments – Section 15
The Employment Tribunal erred in failing to decide the disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims on the basis of the Provision, Criterion or Practice which it identified in the list of issues. Further, the Employment Tribunal erred in failing to make the necessary findings of fact or set out its reasoning in deciding that the Respondent’s policies were not a proportionate means of achieving the aim, which they held to be legitimate, of managing absence and dealing with attendance consistently under one policy. The Employment Tribunal erred in the same way in deciding that the Respondent did not make a reasonable adjustment to its policy on managing attendance. Hardy and Hansons plc v Lax [2005] ICR 1565 applied. See also Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd [2015] 2 WLR 721 paragraph 28.
Slade J
[2015] UKEAT 0412 – 14 – 3004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax CA 7-Jul-2005
The issue of justification of discrimination is rarely a simple matter. No margin of appreciation was to be allowed to an employer. It is for the tribunal to make its own judgment as to whether the practice complained of by the employee was . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550121