header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008 / Peter Hungerford-welch
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Employment , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment Law

Environment Agency v Rowan  [2008] IRLR 20, [2007] All ER (D) 22 (Nov)

 

An employment tribunal considering a claim that an employer has discriminated against an employee pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, s 3A(2) by failing to comply with the s 4A duty must identify:

 

(i) the provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of an employer, or

(ii) the physical feature of premises occupied by the employer,

(iii) the identity of non-disabled com­parators (where appropriate), and

(iv) the nature and extent of the substantial disadvantage suffered by the claimant.

 

It should be borne in mind that identification of the substantial disadvantage suf­fered by the claimant may involve a consideration of the cumulative effect of both the “provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of an employer” and the “physical feature of premises”, so it is necessary to look at the overall picture. Un­less the employment tribunal has identified these four matters, it cannot go on to judge if any pro­posed adjustment is reasonable.

 

Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Employment , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll