www.macroberts.com
Roundtable
Discussion
20 November
2013
Karen McGill
Equality Act 2010
• Protects job applicants
MacRoberts LLP
• Protects candidates for promotion
• Access to benefits, facilities or services
• Duty to make reasonable adjustments
• Detriment and dismissal
• All on basis of protected characteristics
Disability?
• Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
MacRoberts LLP
• (1)a person (P) has a disability if—
• (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and
• (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term
adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal
day-to-day activities.
Schedule 1 Part 1
• Long-term effects
MacRoberts LLP
• 2 (1)the effect of an impairment is long-term if—
•
(a) it has lasted for at least 12 months,
•
(b) it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or
•
(c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person
affected.
•
(2) if an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse
effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day
activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if
that effect is likely to recur.
•
Schedule 1 Part 1
MacRoberts LLP
•
5(1) an impairment is to be treated as having a
substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person
concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if—
•
(a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and
•
(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.
•
(2)“measures” includes, in particular, medical
treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid
•
6(1) Cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis are
each a disability.
Equality Act Guidance
MacRoberts LLP
• 60 pages
• A5: A disability can arise from the
following type of impairment:
• developmental, such as autistic spectrum
disorders (ASD), dyslexia and dyspraxia
Common Triggers
• Recruitment
MacRoberts LLP
• Interview
• Appraisal
• Performance Management
• Assessments
MacRoberts LLP
Cases
• Paterson v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
[2007] IRLR 763, [2007] ICR 1522, EAT: Mr
Paterson was a police officer who suffered
from Dyslexia such that an expert
recommended he be allowed additional time
to undertake the examinations which he had
to pass to achieve promotion.
• The EAT, reversing the decision of the
employment tribunal, found him to be a
disabled person, since the activity of carrying
out assessments or doing examinations were
to be classed as 'normal day-to-day activities',
as were reading and comprehension.
Cases
MacRoberts LLP
• In Noor v Foreign and Commonwealth Office UKEAT/0470/10, [2011] ICR
695, [2011] EqLR 448, EAT, an applicant for a job had dyslexia and
dyspraxia and had been placed at a substantial disadvantage in
comparison to non-disabled applicants by being required to answer
questions on a competency which, because of error, had not been
included in the advertisement for the job.
• The ET struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success
in light of evidence from the respondent that even if the claimant had
received full marks for the questions relating to the 'missing' competency
and all questions asked in the interview after that competency had been
interrogated, he still would only have ranked third.
• The EAT held the ET had erred in holding that for the adjustment to be
reasonable it must be shown that taking the step would prevent the
disadvantage (though it would be relevant to the issue of remedy).
MacRoberts LLP
© MacRoberts LLP 2013
EDINBURGH OFFICE
EXCEL HOUSE 30 SEMPLE STREET
EDINBURGH EH3 8BL
T: +44 (0)131 229 5046
F: +44 (0)131 229 0849
GLASGOW OFFICE
CAPELLA 60 YORK STREET
GLASGOW G2 8JX
T: +44 (0)141 303 1100
F: +44 (0)141 332 8886
WWW.MACROBERTS.COM