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.

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.

2012/23: Stairlift costing € 6,000 was reasonable accommodation (NL)

A stairlift costing € 6,000 was a reasonable and not a disproportionately expensive adjustment for a supermarket cashier who was unable to use the staircase. 

2012/23: Stairlift costing € 6,000 was reasonable accommodation (NL)

A stairlift costing € 6,000 was a reasonable and not a disproportionately expensive adjustment for a supermarket cashier who was unable to use the staircase. 

2012/18: Dismissal for being HIV-positive justified (GE)

The termination of an HIV-positive employee cannot lead to a successful claim for damages based on disability discrimination if the safety standards adopted by the employer aim to prevent the infection of patients with that disease.

2012/18: Dismissal for being HIV-positive justified (GE)

The termination of an HIV-positive employee cannot lead to a successful claim for damages based on disability discrimination if the safety standards adopted by the employer aim to prevent the infection of patients with that disease.