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

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