Disability discrimination law remains a complex area for employers to navigate. In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal decision that an employee was unfairly dismissed for viewing pornography at work during a hypoglycaemic episode brought on by diabetes when his behaviour was wholly out of character.
Forward to a colleague View as a webpage Add us to your white list
XpertHR - Online HR Intelligence
Quick Links »   Perspective   Case law   Employment tribunal decisions   IRS surveys   Blog
Perspective

Employment law under the coalition Government
Consultant editor Darren Newman asks what the coalition Government's "Programme for government" tells us about the future of employment law in relation to, among other things, equality, retirement and flexible working.

Top

Case law

Race discrimination: May & Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi-Aventis Pharma) v Okerago
The EAT held that an employer could not be liable for a discriminatory act committed by an agency worker, on its premises, against one of its employees.

Disability discrimination: City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson
The EAT ruled that an employee whose employer failed properly to consider his explanation that he had behaved out of character during a hypoglycaemic episode was unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal's conclusion that the employer's rejection of that explanation amounted to direct and disability-related discrimination was overturned.

Age discrimination: Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG
The ECJ held that German law that excludes employment below the age of 25 when calculating minimum statutory notice periods based on length of service amounts to unjustified age discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.

Equal pay: City of Edinburgh Council v Wilkinson and others
The EAT held that a group of administrative and clerical female workers in a local authority could compare themselves with a group of male manual workers who were based in different locations when making equal pay claims. 

Top

Employment tribunal decisions

XpertHR provides summaries of recent employment tribunal rulings involving race discrimination and disability discrimination and dyslexia.

› Lengthy campaign of racial harassment condoned by employer

› Employee who made Nazi salute was unfairly dismissed

› Employer under duty to postpone dyslexic employee's capability dismissal process and implement adjustments

› Employer failed to take account of employee’s dyslexia during disciplinary procedure

› Dyslexic employee dismissed for misconduct was not discriminated against

› Unreasonable to expect employer to incorporate spell-check in new bespoke software

› Dyslexic employee dismissed for misconduct issues unrelated to his disability

Top

IRS surveys

IRS 2010 retirement procedures survey: employers want to retain retirement age
IRS research on the default retirement age finds that three-quarters of employers surveyed have retained a contractual retirement age and the same number do not wish to see it abolished or raised above 65.

Top

From the blog

› We Want Sex: equal pay film trailer debuts

› Redundancy: can employers favour women on maternity leave over men?

› Employment Tribunals: get the very latest information

Top

Editor's message

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability discrimination law remains a complex area for employers to navigate.

In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld an employment tribunal decision that an employee was unfairly dismissed for viewing pornography at work during a "hypoglycaemic episode" brought on by diabetes when his behaviour was wholly out of character.

However, the EAT overturned the tribunal decision that the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination. The EAT stated that the tribunal had erred in apparently assuming that, because the employer unreasonably rejected a "disability explanation", this gave rise to direct and disability-related discrimination. The EAT found no evidence that the employer had rejected the explanation because the employee was diabetic.

As well as reporting important appellate decisions, we provide summaries of recent employment tribunal decisions on disability discrimination and dyslexia, which is one of the most common types of disability suffered by claimants.

Jeya Thiruchelvam
Equal opportunities editor,
XpertHR

 

XpertHR Weekly

XpertHR Weekly podcast

Get more out of XpertHR

Model policies
Good practice guides
Line manager briefings
Salary surveys
Tools for subscribers

My XpertHR
User guide
Advanced search
XpertHR feeds
Customer services

Password reminder
Email the helpdesk
or call 0845 671 1110
Read previous newsletters
Part of the XpertHR Group
Forward to a colleague xperthr.co.uk
This email has been sent to luke.smith@rbi.co.uk

Unsubscribe from future equal opportunities emails.

Disclaimer This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("Intended Recipient") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

© Reed Business Information Ltd +44 (0)20 8652 3500 | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

Registered Office: Reed Business, Quadrant House, 9th Floor, The Quadrant, Sutton, SM2 5AS.
Registered in England & Wales: 151537