header-logo header-logo

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

Firm answer

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

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’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
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
back-to-top-scroll