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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll