header-logo header-logo

Ignorance of a disability

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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