EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage.
The Employment Tribunal found that reasonable adjustments could have been made although there was no evidence to support the finding and the finding was contrary to the medical evidence.
Judges:
His Honour Judge D Serota QC
Citations:
UKEAT/0712/04, [2005] UKEAT 0712 – 04 – 0908, UKEAT/0144/05
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6(1)
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Dundee City Council v Malcolm EAT 25-Jul-2008
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Vicarious liability
Sexual harassment claim by an employee of an education authority. Circumstances in which tribunal had misdirected itself as to its own prior judgment and erred in . .
Cited – Stafford and Rural Homes Ltd and Another v Hughes EAT 9-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Effect of Malcolm: on the facts of the case the decision in Malcolm did not make any difference to the conclusion. There is no requirement in law to set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231131
