header-logo header-logo

Employment: Against the clock

Has Matuszowicz reset the clock for employers dealing with DDA 1995 claims? Tom Poole reports

Once an employer knows, or reasonably should know, that one of its employees is a disabled person within the meaning of s 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995), it is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that the employee is not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to those people who are not disabled.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments, the nature of which is central to disability discrimination legislation, is unique from the duties imposed by other anti-discrimination legislation, eg it is possible for an employer to fail to comply with the duty by way of either deliberate conduct or inadvertent omission. No problem arises in relation to the definition of acts of discrimination in this respect. However, a problem does arise when one considers the provisions defining the period within which proceedings must be brought, contained in DDA 1995, Sch 3, para 3.

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll