The employer appealed against a finding of disability discrimination. The tribunal was claimed not to have taken account of the codes of practice and the need for a risk assessment.
Held: The absence of a risk assessment mean that no adjustment had been considered, and no justification was available. The finding was essentially under 5(1). The appeal was dismissed. The appeal against the award of damages calculated over two years was also dismissed. The EAT specifically criticised the minority chairman’s readiness to make allowance for a possible award of damages for the accident which led to the disability. To do so would defeat entirely the purpose of the legislation.
Judges:
The Honourable Lord Johnston
Citations:
EAT/220/01
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – P B Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd EAT 14-Jul-1999
The Tribunal set out the order of questions to be established in a claim of disability discrimination: ‘The statutory sequence for establishing justification in a s.5(1)(a) claim is as follows: (1) The disabled appellant shows less favourable . .
Cited – Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd EAT 19-Nov-1998
Where a tribunal had found unfair dismissal and was considering an award of damages for injury to feelings under the Disability Discrimination Act, it had to recognise the different needs of unlimited awards, and take great care in assessing factual . .
Cited – the Post Office v S C Jones EAT 9-Feb-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Adjustments . .
Cited – H J Heinz and Co Ltd v Kendrick 2000
. .
Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Scotland, Discrimination
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.166530