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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll