header-logo header-logo

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

An uncertain prognosis

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

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll