2014/5 Paying for a disabled employee’s private counselling was a reasonable adjustment (UK)

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has decided that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for an employer to pay for a disabled employee to have private psychiatric counselling to assist with her work-related stress and depression.

2013/38 The assessment at the date of notice is decisive (DK)

It follows from Danish case law that it is the facts and circumstances known to the employer at the date of notice of termination that are decisive when deciding whether a dismissal is justified. The Danish Eastern High Court has established that this principle applies to the assessment of disability as well.

2013/38 The assessment at the date of notice is decisive (DK)

It follows from Danish case law that it is the facts and circumstances known to the employer at the date of notice of termination that are decisive when deciding whether a dismissal is justified. The Danish Eastern High Court has established that this principle applies to the assessment of disability as well.

2013/37 Employer need not waive competitive interview requirement for disabled candidate (UK)

Following an internal restructure, a disabled employee argued that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for her to have been appointed to a vacant role without being competitively interviewed for the post. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) rejected the appeal and upheld the employment tribunal’s decision that an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments does not extend to appointing internal candidates if they do not meet the essential criteria of the job they are applying for.

2013/37 Employer need not waive competitive interview requirement for disabled candidate (UK)

Following an internal restructure, a disabled employee argued that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for her to have been appointed to a vacant role without being competitively interviewed for the post. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) rejected the appeal and upheld the employment tribunal’s decision that an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments does not extend to appointing internal candidates if they do not meet the essential criteria of the job they are applying for.

2013/23 When does an employer have “imputed knowledge” of an employee’s disability? (UK)

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) has determined that an employer can have “imputed” knowledge of an employee’s disability, even if the wrong medical diagnosis was attached to the Claimant’s condition at the time.

The EAT went on to hold that, despite such knowledge, it was not a reasonable adjustment in this case for the employer to exempt the employee from its absence management policy, even though the cause of the employee’s intermittent absences was his underlying disability.

2013/23 When does an employer have “imputed knowledge” of an employee’s disability? (UK)

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) has determined that an employer can have “imputed” knowledge of an employee’s disability, even if the wrong medical diagnosis was attached to the Claimant’s condition at the time.

The EAT went on to hold that, despite such knowledge, it was not a reasonable adjustment in this case for the employer to exempt the employee from its absence management policy, even though the cause of the employee’s intermittent absences was his underlying disability.

2013/43 The impact of Ring on European and Austrian practice (Article)

This article reviews and comments on the recent European Court of Justice (the ‘Court’) ruling in the joined cases Ring and Skoube Werge11 (together: ‘Ring’). The Court adopted a definition of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Court also held that a reduction in working hours can be a reasonable accommodation. Has Ring brought anything new when compared with the Court’s 2006 ruling in Chacón Navas2?

2013/43 The impact of Ring on European and Austrian practice (Article)

This article reviews and comments on the recent European Court of Justice (the ‘Court’) ruling in the joined cases Ring and Skoube Werge11 (together: ‘Ring’). The Court adopted a definition of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Court also held that a reduction in working hours can be a reasonable accommodation. Has Ring brought anything new when compared with the Court’s 2006 ruling in Chacón Navas2?

2013/6 Volunteers without contracts are not protected by discrimination law (UK)

The Supreme Court has ruled that an unpaid Citizens Advice Bureau volunteer (‘X’), who did not have a contract, was not protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the ‘DDA’) or the Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC (the ‘Directive’). The Supreme Court refused to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, on the grounds that the interpretation of the Directive was not open to ‘reasonable doubt’. The DDA was repealed on 1 October 2010 and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, but this contains substantially the same provisions.