Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Council Directive 2000/78 EC Amending Regulations 2004 Disability Discrimination Act 2005
Disability Direct Discrimination Disability Related Discrimination Failure to make a reasonable adjustment Associative Discrimination Indirect Disability Discrimination
Disability: SCA Packaging v Boyle A condition which has occurred in the past and may reoccur
The Northern Ireland Tribunal The provision: it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur Industrial Tribunal: the tribunal held that the vocal nodes were "likely" to recur if the claimant did not follow her voice management regime
Northern Ireland Court of Appeal The test is not “more probable than not” "could well happen" rather than the higher threshold of "more probable than not" The House of Lords agreed
House of Lords - obiter Where someone is following a course of treatment on medical advice, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, an employer can assume that, without the treatment, the impairment is "likely" to recur. If the impairment had a substantial effect on the patient's day-to-day life before it was treated, the employer can also assume - again in the absence of any contra-indication - that, if it does recur, its effect will be substantial.
Direct Discrimination: Watts 2006
Discrimination Related to Disability The end of disability related discrimination as we knew it Lewisham v Malcolm
Facts – Mental impairment – Council tenant proposed purchase of his flat – Sub-let flat (contrary to his tenancy agreement) and had gone to live elsewhere – Council declined to sell & served notice to evict
Malcolm’s Argument I suffer from a mental impairment (schizophrenia) I only sub-let the flat because I was suffering an episode of mental impairment which was note being controlled at the time I am being evicted because I agreed to sub-let the flat Therefore the eviction is related to my disability and unlawful
Lewisham’s argument You are not disabled Even if you are disabled, we were unaware of that and so the decision could not be related to your disability Further, anyone who sub-let their flat would be evicted Therefore, you are not being treated less favourably than someone who is not disabled for a reason related to your disability
Trial Judge Malcolm did not sub-let the flat because of his condition Malcolm’s condition did not amount to a disability under the Act
Court of Appeal The trial judge was wrong on both counts – – The Court of Appeal also found – – Disability Causation Knowledge of the disability was unnecessary The comparator was someone who had not sub-let the flat Therefore the council did discriminate against Malcolm
House of Lords The court of appeal was wrong to overturn the trial judge’s findings on causation – This meant the case failed on the facts (3: 2) Further, 4: 1 the Lords decided that the correct comparator was another person who had sub-let their flat Baroness Hale dissented
Failure to make Reasonable Adjustment Practice Criterion Provision Physical
Reasonable Adjustment Knowledge – The employer must be aware The adjustment must make some difference
What next: indirect discrimination Articles 1 and 2 of the directive prohibit – – any discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of disability Whether direct or indirect
Association: Coleman v Attridge – – Sharon Coleman was employed as a legal secretary by Attridge Law, a firm of solicitors. She had a disabled son, who was born in 2002. He suffered from a disability He required specialised and particular care. Ms Coleman was his primary carer.
Associative Indirect Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation – National law Exclusion If national law does not impose an obligation to make a reasonable adjustment/reasonable accommodation the provisions relating to indirect discrimination may apply
Скачать презентацию Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Council Directive 2000 78 EC
7022c040d844999ddbd865436109252c.ppt