EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Exclusions/jurisdictions
The Employment Judge did not err in finding that the Appellant, a volunteer worker with the CAB, was not entitled by the DDA to claim disability discrimination. The Government is not in breach of the Framework Directive in this regard, and s4(2)(d) and s68 of the DDA do not fall to be read down or rewritten (by reference to Marleasing or Mangold) so as to extend protection to voluntary workers without a contract. The Judge was also entitled to find that the CAB arrangements were not within s4(1)(a) of the DDA.
Judges:
Burton J
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0220 – 08 – 3010, [2010] ICR 423, [2010] 1 CMLR 27, [2010] IRLR 101
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(1)(a), Directive 2000/78/EEC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Others CA 26-Jan-2011
The court was asked whether the claimant, a volunteer worker with the respondent had the protection of the 1995 Act in that work as a worker, despite nnot being employed. . .
At EAT – X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.377545
