header-logo header-logo

Firm answer

18 July 2014 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail
specialist_public_keen

Employers do not owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments for persons who are not disabled, says Spencer Keen

The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed in Hainsworth v MOD [2014] EWCA Civ 763 that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is only owed to disabled employees and that adjustments are not required to be made for employees who are associated in some way with a disabled person.

Hainsworth

The appellant in this case was employed by the British armed forces in a civilian capacity since 30 April 1998. She was an inclusion support development teacher at the relevant time and was required to work from a British Garrison in Germany. Her daughter had Down’s Syndrome and was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Although the respondent provided educational facilities for the children of its employees it did not provide special educational needs facilities. The claimant’s daughter could not therefore receive her schooling from the respondent in Germany.

After a number of informal enquiries the claimant submitted a formal request

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—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll