header-logo header-logo

14 August 2009 / Richard Oulton
Issue: 7382 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

When is a clone not a clone?

In Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott [2009] IRLR 548, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given further confirmation that the restrictive test for disability-related discrimination laid down by the House of Lords in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] 4 All ER 525 applies equally to the employment field. No surprises there then.

The greater significance of the case lies in the fact that it is the first decision of the EAT since High Quality Lifestyles v Watts [2006] 850, [2006] All ER (D) 216 (Apr) in which any guidance has been given on the comparative test to be applied in cases of direct disability discrimination.
 

The statutory comparison

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, s 3A(5) provides that a person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person’s disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll