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 failure to make a reasonable adjustment, following the decision of the EAT in Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566. She appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal ought to have identified further acts of disability discrimination. The employers cross appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that there had been an unfair dismissal; and that the Tribunal ought not to have applied the Mid-Staffordshire case, both because the failure to consult had never been identified as an issue in the case, and because in any event it was wrong and ought not to be followed. The EAT held that the appeal succeeded in part, it being unclear whether the Tribunal had made a finding in connection with one of the alleged acts of discrimination; and that the cross appeal succeeded with respect to the disability discrimination issue, for both of the reasons advanced; but that the cross appeal against the finding of unfair dismissal failed.
The single question under section 5 was whether the employer had complied with his obligations there set out. If he had failed to conduct a proper (not a ‘formal’) assessment then he could not use ignorance by reason of that failure to excuse lack of compliance; but there was no separate and distinct duty to perform that assessment.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justce Elias (President)
Citations:
[2006] IRLR 664, UKEAT/0136/06, [2006] UKEAT 0136 – 06 – 0806
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1996 5
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
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 – 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 . .
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: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248854
