header-logo header-logo

12 June 2008 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Features , Public , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

All in the mind?

Are employers discriminating against disabled working minds? Neil Allen reports

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) protects job applicants and employees whose physical or mental impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Prior to December 2005, any mental impairment must also have resulted from or consisted of a “clinically well-recognised” mental illness. This diagnostic threshold was intended only to exclude moody or mildly eccentric claimants from statutory protection. However, “psychiatry is not an exact science. Diagnosis is not easy or clear cut” (R (on the application of B) v Ashworth [2005] 2 All ER 289 per Baroness Hale). As a result, DDA 1995 did nothing to prevent employers from treating less favourably those whose psychiatric symptoms were not clinically well-recognised.

Despite having little more than “a layman's rudimentary familiarity with psychiatric classification” (Morgan v Staffordshire University [2001] All ER (D) 119), employment tribunals have been expected to assess often complex expert evidence. The Employment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll