header-logo header-logo

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

Comparing comparators

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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