header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 January 2017 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Time to adjust

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7728_keen

Spencer Keen explores the limits of the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees
  • ​The duty to make adjustments requires an employer to take steps to avoid a disadvantage caused to a disabled employee by any of its provisions, criteria or practices.

Is a disabled employee who is transferred to a new role because he is unable to perform the old one entitled to keep his original salary even though the salary for his new role is normally lower? This was the difficult question the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has tasked with answering in the case of G4S Cash Solution Ltd v Mr Powell UKEAT/0243/15/RN. The EAT’s answer leaves employers more vulnerable to employee’s claims for additional pay (including sick pay) than was previously the case.

The facts

G4S was in the business of replenishing and maintaining cash machines. It employed engineers for this purpose. Mr Powell was employed as an engineer when he began to experience a problem with his lower back which led to him becoming unfit to perform jobs involving

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll