• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/8

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Kenny v Hampshire CC
- Employee wanted a carer to work with them at work
- This was rejected and they tried to claim disability discrimination.. but this was too far.. - Obligation to make reasonable adjustments
- One must be able to carry out the minimum and every essential aspects of the job.
Butterfield v Edmond Nutall
- Manager was extremely stressed at work and completed 2 separate occasions of exhibitionism. He was dismissed due to this behaviour and tried to claim disability discrimination and say that the stress had caused him mental health issues and had caused these 2 incidents.
-But there was no sufficient evidence that this was a mental health issue. & so this was exhibitionism, which is not covered under the disability discrimination act.
Clark v Novacold
- An employee hurt his leg and was going to need a year off in order to heel.
- Employer said this was too long and dismissed him.
- Clark took a claim against Novacold for disability discrimination - The defence was rejected and the court said said that if he did not have this disability then he wouldn't have been dismissed and the comparator in this situation was an employee who did not have a disability.
Tarling v Wisdom Toothbrushes
- A guy was employed & his production of toothbrushes was less than his colleagues.
- this was because of his leg. He needed a special chair in order to increase his production. He showed his employer the chair he needed and gave them the detailers of a charity that could supply it.
- The employer outrightly said no and said if his production didn't increase then they would dismiss him.
- Tarling took them to court claiming disability discrimination - won his case because the employer did not take reasonable steps to adjust the workplace to accommodate his disability.
- Chair only cost £200 and this is about the price that most reasonable adjustments cost.

- The employer didn't even look into the chair - if they had looked into it and still said no would the court have come to the same conclusion?
Tabolt v WAGN
- Train driver, - someone jumped in front of his train and killed themselves.
- He said he wanted to be placed in the customer services department as he couldn't work as a train driver anymore due to the emotional stress it had given him.
- The employer said this was not a reasonable adjustment as they didn't have this work for him.
- Tabolt took them to the court - and he won, the court said this was a reasonable adjustment to make in this situation & that disabled people should be given a helping hand because it is more difficult for them to gain employment.
Edwards v London Underground
- Indirect Discrimination
- A woman wanted flexible working hours in order to be able to fit in with children's days.
- She won.
Cockroft v Restus Ltd
- Direct Discrimination
- Restus Ltd prevent women from lifting because they thought they were too weak to do so.
Power v Panasonic
- Power started drinking and became depressed.
- The big thing was whether the drinking or the depression had came first.
- Power was off work and then was dismissed while she was off work - she tried to claim for disability discrimination
- Power won her case.


In order to determine whether a person has a disability within the meaning of the Act, there is no need for the Tribunal to consider how the impairment was caused. What is relevant is whether the disability they have at the time is a disability within the meaning of the Act or, where relevant, whether it is excluded by the Regulations. The Appeal Tribunal found that there was no conflict in this respect between the Regulations and the Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability. Indeed, both the regulations and the guidance were introduced pursuant to enabling the provisions of the DDA. This case confirms the principle that the DDA distinguishes between excluded conditions such as a