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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll