header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Mackay disability case favours employer

News

An employer’s failure to consult with a disabled employee over options available to them is not of itself a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held.

In Scottish and Southern Energy plc v Mackay, the employer was held not to have breached its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for failing to explore satisfactorily with its employee—an electrician suffering a debilitating depressive illness—his commitment to employment elsewhere in the company.

The EAT confirmed that tribunals should follow the approach set out in Tarbuck v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, that a failure to consult over options is not a failure to make reasonable adjustments. It ruled that Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge should no longer be followed.

However, the EAT upheld the tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal, despite expressing that this has “caused us some concern”.

Daniel Barnett, employment law barrister at 1 Temple Gardens, says: “It remains good practice for employers to carry out a full risk assessment; not doing so might not be discriminatory in its own right, but it runs the risk the employer might miss a reasonable adjustment and be liable as a result.”

Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
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
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’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll