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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll