Archive for the ‘Disability Discrimination’ Category
By Sarah - Friday, June 27th, 2008
Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out her plans for the equality bill. You can watch her speech here.
In summary, the plans are designed to stamp out the pay divide and will be brought about in three ways:
1. In the use of the proposed Equality Bill.
2. By using secondary legislation.
3. By action in by the newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission.
It would take another 80 years, Harman says, to equalise pay so they are going to make it compulsory for companies to report on equality issues by gender pay for their employees to see in the same way that hospitals and schools publish league tables on waiting lists and exam results.
The plan is to bring equality in five ways. Firstly be using the public procurement process. Presumably this will mean it will be harder for companies to secure public sector contracts unless they are seen to be good role models.
Secondly, they will outlaw clauses in the employment contracts which prohibit employees from talking to one another about their pay. Some employers use these clauses not to allow a gender divide but to stop those in similar positions finding out each others salary to get into a bidding war.
The third measure is to give the Employment Tribunal extended powers to make recommendations not just in relation to the successful complainant but to all affected employees. Whether this will extend their powers in the same way as protective awards remains to be seen.
Next the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is to use its statutory powers of investigation. Harman says that they will start with the financial sector in a bid to outlaw sexism in the city. This is something this firm has seen first hand for one of its employees against a large UK plc (and won I hasten to add!)
The final measure relates to the reporting provisions I have set out above. It therefore appears that we have some important changes to employment legislation on the horizon so watch this space for further updates. We will also be launching our Employment law training programme in early July which will enable you to keep up to date.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Equal Pay, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
Following on from my blog last week about employer’s conduct during a hearing this time we have another EAT decision about conduct by an employer.
This time the Claimant was claiming disability discriminination. The Employer again subjected him to abuse and intimidation calculated to deter him from continuing with the case after the initial hearing, which was set to determine whether or not the employee was disabled.
The Claimant sought to raise the complaints as fresh proceedings before the Employment Tribunal. The Chairman sent it back saying that the alleged conduct attracted judicial proceedings immunity. The Claimant appealed to the EAT.
The EAT held that if the conduct was proved it would amount to harassment and it arise out of and be closely connected with the employment relationship thus meaning that it would fall within terms of the DDA and be disability discrimination and the conduct would not attract judicial proceedings immunity.
These cases are quite unusual so to have two in one week is very unusual!
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Emma - Thursday, April 24th, 2008
An Employment Tribunal has recently decided that baldness does not amount to a physical or mental impairment covered by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). You may not find this surprising. However, teacher, James Campbell, argued that he had been bullied and teased by his pupils because they saw of his lack of hair as a weakness.
The Employment Judge hearing the claim whilst accepting that Mr Campbell had been taunted because of his baldness struck out the disability discrimination claim (his unfair dismissal claim is still live) saying that “if baldness was to be regarded as an impairment then perhaps a physical feature such as a big nose, big ears or being smaller than average height might of themselves be regarded as an impairment under the DDA. That, to me, cannot be right looking to the DDA, the guidance and relevant case law.”
Thank goodness for that!
See here for more information.
Posted in Disability Discrimination | 2 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Tuesday, March 25th, 2008
The EAT has considered reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in The Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Mr Weaver. The EAT held:
1. In assessing the question of reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal should take into account both the effect the adjustment would have on other non-disabled employees and other disabled employees. This was a factor that was taken to consideration in O’Hanlon v Inland Revenue which held that paying disabled employees full pay while off sick was not a reasonable adjustment.
2. The fact that the Employer had adopted deliberately a Provision Criteria or Practice which operated to the disadvantage of disabled people was irrelevant to the question of whether a reasonable adjustment could be made. This must be correct, as there would be no need to consider reasonable adjustments if there was not a Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP) that put disabled people to a substantial disadvantage, as without such a PCP, there is nothing for which adjustments need to be made!
Posted in Disability Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Monday, February 4th, 2008
In Jumard v Clywd Leisure Ltd & Others the Claimant was awarded compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination and Disability Discrimination totaling £116,547 plus interest.
The Tribunal said ”For the injury to feelings and stress suffered for the racial and disability discrimination, which occurred over a period of some 20 months, we award £13,000.00″. In addition the Tribunal awarded £5,000.00 for pain and suffering exacerbated by the Respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments and £1,500.00 for aggravated damages. The rest of the award related to future loss and pension loss.
The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds, including that the Tribunal took too much of a “broad brush” approach to the injury to feelings award. The EAT held that while it can be appropriate to make a single award for injury to feelings arising out of both race and disability discrimination, where there are specific acts that fall within one type of discrimination but not the other, the Tribunal should have considered separately what award was appropriate for each type of discrimination and then check that the total was proportionate and did not result in double recovery. The EAT also held that the Tribunal should have considered whether any award was appropriate for the Claimant’s victimisation complaint which the Tribunal upheld but did not specifically allocate any part of the award to.
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | 3 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, January 31st, 2008
The EU Attorney General has given an opinion that an employee can be discriminated against by association. The question that had been referred to the ECJ was whether someone who was not themselves disabled, could claim disability discrimination where that person was closely associated with a disabled person.
An employee with a disabled son needed more flexibility in her work arrangements. The employer allegedly accused her of using his condition to “get out of work.”The employee obviously has the statutory right to request a flexible working pattern. Does she also have the right to complain about remarks that could be deemed to discriminatory of disabled people? The initial opinion appears to be yes, but we await the ECJ’s final decision.
Applying common senses, (dangerous I know) having derogatory general comments made in the workplace about,say, downs syndrome within the earshot of an employee with a downs syndrome child would seem to fall within the ambit of the DDA.
Posted in Disability Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Tuesday, December 18th, 2007
The Employment Appeal Tribunal have given Judgment on an interesting case on disability discrimination, which although not new law explores whether a dismissal for a disability can be justified and/or whether the Council complied with its obligations as to reasonable adjustments.
The Council dismissed an employee who had a disability within the first year of employment and the EAT explore within the Judgment what the alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments were and whether the dismissal was justified. They held that the Tribunal had erred in law and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal on a number of issues.
Posted in Disability Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Wednesday, December 12th, 2007
The EAT have decided in Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary that reducing the standards that an employee is expected to attain is not a reasonable adjustment that he is required to make under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Hart was prevented, by a disability, from performing certain duties that were expected of a police officer. In particular she could not deal with “confrontational situations requiring restraint, arrest and detention” due to her disability (a spinal problem caused by an earlier accident). Hart argued that the requirement to deal with such situations should be removed as a standard she had to reach in order to pass her probation. The EAT disagreed. Lowering standards is not a reasonable adjustment that has to be made.
Posted in Disability Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, November 22nd, 2007
A 34 year old GMB worker, with learning difficulties, has won a record half a million pounds in disability discrimination compensation at Croydon Employment Tribunal.
In a case brought by 24 GMB union members, following a round of redundancies amongst gardeners, the Tribunal made a total award of £1.3 million for various claims including the one above and others for unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the employer, Serviceteam, had not consulted properly, had breached its own equal opportunities policy, and had applied its own redundancy selection criteria in an arbitrary way.
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, October 31st, 2007
At PJH Law we deliver training to employers on dignity at work and harassment issues. Team members have over 15 years combined experience in delivering face to face training and our elearning dignity at work product is now over 2 years old.
When delivering face to face training we try to stimulate interest and debate by discussing, in general and anonymised terms, cases of harassment we have dealt with over the years. We also state that harassing someone because they are disabled is a rare event, with sexual or racial harassment being a far more prevalent claim.
Well the story reported here, you couldn’t make up, even as a far fetched case study exercise. An employee with thalidomide was harassed at work, with the harassment relating to her disability and her sex. The harassment, or so the Tribunal were told, included a works night out at the local bowling alley as a “team building exercise,”even though the employee only had 3 fingers on one hand and had one inch fingers on the other and could not hold a bowling ball. To add further humiliation to her existing embarassment, she was awarded the certificate mega flops at the end of the evening, after only being able to use the child’s bowling ramp.
You would imagine that the type of employer to allow this to happen would operate in a hard nosed, no nonsense industry sector. Wrong!The Company at the centre of allegations apparently organises therapy for dyslexic children, talk about leaving foxes to guard the chicken coop.
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
