header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

A shifting balance

At what point does the burden of proof shift in reasonable adjustment cases? Spencer Keen explains

Broadly speaking, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) places employers under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled worker if any of their provisions, criteria or practices place that worker at a substantial disadvantage when compared with a non-disabled worker.

CONSIDERING ADJUSTMENTS

In Tarbuck v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd [2006] IRLR 664, [2006] All ER (D) 50 (Jun), Mr Justice Elias held that a duty to make reasonable adjustments would not be breached simply because an employer failed to consider whether or not an adjustment was required. The line of authorities since Mid-Staffordshire General Hospital NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566, [2003] All ER (D) 06 (Sep), suggesting that a simple failure to consider an adjustment could breach the duty, was overruled.

In Tarbuck the claimant was a business analyst and IT project manager who suffered from ulcerative colitis and depression. She claimed that her employer had failed to consult with her about her

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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll