header-logo header-logo

09 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Added protection

Discrimination

Employers have a duty under disability discrimination laws toward employees whose health condition “could well happen” in the future, following a landmark House of Lords ruling.

SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle  [2009] UKHL 37 (1 July 2009) concerned a woman with a propensity to develop nodules on her vocal cords, which she managed through a strict regime to conserve her voice. She claimed disability discrimination when her employer moved her to a noisier environment, where she had to raise her voice. Her employers disputed that she was “disabled”.

The Law Lords ruled in her favour. They extended the scope of the term “disability” by interpreting the word “likely” in para 6(1) of Sch 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to mean “could well happen”, a wider test than “more likely than not”.

Delivering judgment, Lord Rodger said: “a doctor does not prescribe a continuing course of drug or other treatment only where she considers that there is more than a 50% chance of the condition or symptoms recurring. She does so when she considers that there is a significant risk of that happening—when ‘it could well happen’.”

Susie Uppal, director of legal enforcement at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said it was important for “people [with] chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes” to be recognised as disabled under the law.

Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll