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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll