EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
1. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in finding that the Claimant had not established a PCP in respect of her allegation of failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning ergonomic assessment. Grounds 2 and 5 dismissed.
2. The Employment Tribunal did not give sufficient reasons on the question whether a changed Occupational Health report was ‘something arising from [the Claimant’s] disability’, and may have adopted a wrong legal approach: Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe [2016] ICR 305 and Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170 considered and applied. Ground 1 allowed.
3. The ET erred in failing to consider and apply PCPs in respect of the Share Save Scheme which the Claimant had pleaded; and in finding that a term of the Respondent’s final salary Pension Scheme, which had not changed and had always been applicable to her employment, has not been applied to her. Grounds 3 and 4 allowed.
Judges:
David Richardson HHJ
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0296 – 16 – 2604
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.590414