header-logo header-logo

18 November 2010 / Philip Thornton
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Ignorance of a disability

Philip Thornton considers some unfortunate drafting in the Equality Act 2010

Where a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments is alleged, an employer has always had a defence where it would be unreasonable to expect it to know that any adjustments might be required. That defence originally worked (under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995)) by disapplying the duty in two situations:

  • applicants for employment: where the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know that the relevant disabled person is, or may be, an applicant for the employment;
  • in any case: where the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know that the person has a disability and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage by any of the employer's “arrangements” or the physical features of its premises.

Although the first exception, regarding applicants for employment, has been re-enacted successfully without major change under the Equality Act 2010, the revised wording of the second exception, regarding lack of knowledge

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