If an employer believes an employee may have a disability, it should obtain medical evidence, discuss the issue with the employee and consider whether or not there are any reasonable adjustments that could be made.This case deals with the tricky issue for employers of when they should suspend employees who are alleged to have commit misconduct.
Her case was referred to the ECJ, which held that a non-disabled claimant can potentially claim direct discrimination and harassment under the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.When Ms Coleman’s case returned to the EAT, it held that UK disability discrimination laws could be read to cover “associative” disability discrimination. Over the course of hundreds of years, the courts have made decisions that impact how the law works today and how it will evolve in the future. New cases: the ruling could ... A landmark ruling in July, which went relatively unnoticed in the UK, ... head of the London employment department at commercial law firm Squire Patton Boggs. Here are the bare bones. Landmark Legal Cases Which Have Shaped UK Law We have listed the top ground-breaking cases that have defined the UK’s legal system, shaping it into what it is today. A landmark ruling in July, which went relatively unnoticed in the UK, has just been upheld in an appeal, and now stands to create an HR headache for It concerns a rather unusual discrimination case, which was brought by a company named Gerry Abrams against EAD Solicitors. These fears were soon allayed when, in May 2006, the Court of Appeal comprehensively dismantled the EAT decision and restored the status quo.This disability discrimination case dealt with an important issue: is it a reasonable adjustment for an employer to continue to pay a disabled worker who has exhausted contractual sick pay?The Court of Appeal’s answer in this case was a definite “no”. New cases: the ruling could have some rather unfortunate repercussions for businessesJoin for instant savings, a dedicated account manager and much moreCheck out the HP store for the laptop ideal for your businessReinvent the way you manage your company with BusinessNowYou'll find the printer suited for your business at the HP store © 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. Until 30 September 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appellate court for the United Kingdom. As always, HR professionals have had their fair share of employment law cases to keep track of in 2019. More bureaucracy, unfortunately. However, Parliamentary time is at a premium because of Brexit, making any legislative changes in the near future unlikely.This case marked the first time in over a century that the highest court in the land has considered restrictive covenants.The Supreme Court provided clarification on the correct test for deciding when an unenforceable restriction in a non-compete clause can be “severed” without the need for any additions or modifications to the remaining wording to render the clause enforceable.In this case, the offending phrase was “concerned or interested in”. Under the Equality Act 2010, discrimination compensation is currently uncapped.In this leading equal pay case, female speech therapists argued they were paid less for doing work of equal value to male pharmacists and psychologists.This ECJ decision set a precedent for groups who are arguing that they do work of equal value to another group made up predominantly of workers of the opposite sex.The ECJ established that, where the statistics are sufficiently compelling to show a disparate impact between the two groups made up largely of different genders, the burden of proof switches to the employer to show that there was a genuine material factor other than sex to explain the difference.It is a common scenario in discrimination cases.
2018 was another busy year for businesses. Does this legislation bar employers from sending letters to employees asking them to agree a pay deal that had been rejected by their trade union?In this case, the employer stated in the letters to staff that the result of a failure to agree to the pay deal on the table was that it would be unable to pay them their Christmas bonus that year.In good news for employers, the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent inducements to employees to opt out of collective bargaining altogether.
Mr Whincup says: “I think that a company of any standing and reputation is going to need very strong evidence before it cheapens itself by bringing a claim of this sort.“It smacks of desperation, it’s embarrassing.
“People may find it easier to say, ‘Oh, for heaven’s sake, have £2,000 and go away’ rather than fight a case in the employment tribunal, which is lengthy and expensive.”He warns that this ruling could open the door to a corporate equivalent of the bad old days of discrimination abuse, when people applied for hundreds of jobs a day, making spurious claims in the hope that companies would pay out to make them go away.We will not know if similar discrimination claims are being made until April.