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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll