header-logo header-logo

Comparing comparators

04 March 2011 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7455 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail
new_image_31_4

Spencer Keen tackles the muddied waters of disability discrimination

In 2008 the approach to comparators in disability discrimination claims was thrown into turmoil by the case of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] 1 AC 1399, [2008] 4 All ER 525. That case all but destroyed the cause of action known as discrimination for a reason related to disability.

Discrimination for a reason related to disability was intended to prohibit just that—less favourable treatment that was afforded to a person for a reason which related to their disability. The case of Malcolm undermined these claims by requiring the comparator to have acted in exactly the same way as the disabled person in question. Where, for instance, a disabled person typed slowly because of his arthritis and was dismissed because of his slow typing the comparator for the purposes of determining whether there was less favourable treatment would be a person who was not disabled but who also typed slowly. This meant in practice that it was difficult to envisage a circumstance in

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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