header-logo header-logo

An uncertain prognosis

07 May 2009 / Helena Davies , Naomi Feinstein
Issue: 7368 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

The new concept of indirect disability discrimination is set to cause confusion, say Naomi Feinstein & Helena Davies

The government's recent announcement that it intends to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005) to incorporate, for the first time, the concept of indirect discrimination, has caused considerable controversy. The concern is that this would make DDA 2005 even more difficult to work with than it is at present.

Currently, DDA 2005 is constructed in a very different way to the other discrimination strands. There are three types of discrimination:

      
      ●     Direct discrimination.

      
      ●     Disability-related discrimination: where the individual has been treated less favourably than other people to whom that disability-related reason does not apply. Disability-related discrimination can be justified if the reason for the treatment is “material and substantial”. It is generally acknowledged that this is not a particularly onerous test.

      
      ●     Failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Problems caused by Malcolm

The House of Lords' judgment last year in London

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll