In the Courts - Employment
February 2008
Employers are not expected to be prophets
The Court of Appeal (CA) has confirmed that a tribunal cannot take subsequent events into account when deciding when somebody qualifies as disabled or not under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Elizabeth McDougall (the respondent) had a job offer for a database assistant withdrawn by Richmond Adult Community College (the appellants) when medical reports demonstrated a psychiatric disorder. Her symptoms ceased at that point in time. However, she did suffer a relapse shortly after the job offer was withdrawn and was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983.
When she took her employers to the Employment Tribunal on grounds of disability discrimination it found she ‘was not disabled and her claims for disability discrimination fail and are dismissed’. She appealed and the EAT did not agree, find that her relapse should have been taken into account when deciding whether her symptoms were likely to reoccur or not. Richmond College appealed and The Court of Appeal ruled this approach cannot be taken and ruled subsequent events ‘irrelevant material’ and that the respondent was not a disabled person at the relevant time.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.