header-logo header-logo

Auxiliary matters & making adjustments

24 September 2021 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7949 / Categories: Features , Employment , Equality
printer mail-detail
58610
Auxiliary aids in adjustments claims: Charles Pigott looks at a less frequently used aspect of the Equality Act
  • The EAT has said that it is ‘all too common’ for auxiliary aids to be overlooked when assessing disability discrimination claims.
  • The breadth of this element of the reasonable adjustments regime was recently demonstrated in judicial review proceedings against the government.

The duty to make adjustments is defined in s 20, Equality Act 2010, and applied across a number of different parts of the Act, including Part 3 (services and public functions) and Part 5 (work). Section 20(2) provides that the duty comprises three requirements, which are defined in sub-sections (3) to (5).

The first two requirements, triggered by the application of a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and the physical features of premises respectively, are more familiar. However, the third requirement is not encountered so frequently, at least in employment case law.

The third requirement applies where a disabled person ‘would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid,

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll