1. Cordell v FCO UKEAT/0016/11/SM (DDA; Reasonable Adjustments)
2. Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1068 (References)
3. Tasneem v Dudley Hospitals UKEAT/ 0232/10/CEA (Implied Terms)
4. Leeds Teaching Hospital v Foster UKEAT/0552/10/JOJ (DDA; Reasonable Adjustments)

===============================================
Cordell v FCO UKEAT/0016/11/SM

DIASBILITY DISCRIMINATION: REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS

The Appellant, Ms Cordell appealed a decision of the Tribunal which held that there was no direct discrimination. The EAT also held that no direct discrimination had occurred.

Ms Cordell was deaf and required the support of lip speakers. The purported cost of the adjustment was in the region of £300,000pa. The Respondent claimed that this was not a reasonable adjustment based on cost. Ms Cordell sought to argue that it was unreasonable to refuse the adjustment based on cost as the Respondent has spent a similar amount on childcare costs.

The EAT held that the job was withdrawn based on cost not Ms Cordell’s disability. The EAT also held that the Tribunal’s consideration of the cost of lip speakers in the context of the Respondent’s overall budget was legitimate and that what the Respondent was prepared to spent on childcare was relevant but not determinative.
http://bit.ly/pIkGCa

===============================================
Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1068

REFERENCES

Mr Jackson left his employment as a social worker of some 12 years on the youth offending team at Liverpool City Council. He left to take up a post at Sefton Borough Council. He received a favourable reference from his then team leader.

One year later he applied for a post at Sefton within their youth offending team. He received an unfavourable reference from his previous group manager. The reference referred to time keeping issues which had not been investigated before he left the job. The post was withdrawn and he was unemployed for 1year. He sought damages. He was successful, the Judge considered that the reference was unfair.

Liverpool City Council appealed. They were successful. The Court of Appeal held that the reference was true and accurate even though it referred to matters which had not been investigated or challenged.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1068.html

===============================================
Tasneem v Dudley Hospitals UKEAT/ 0232/10/CEA

IMPLIED TERMS

The Claimant was a locum consultant. In 2003 the NHD resources department sent a letter to all NHS employing authorities indicating that they give all consultants the opportunity of indicating whether they wished to give a formal commitment to the new contract. The Claimant was not copied into this email. He claimed that there was an implied term in his contract that he be informed of the new consultant’s role.

The Tribunal did however find that he was well aware of the information and did not accept the terms of the offer.

The Hospital was also keen to redress the balance between the small number of substantial consultants and the larger number of locum consultants. In 2006 permission was given to commence formal recruitment of two consultants. The Claimant was short-listed but not appointed.

The Respondent then reduced the number of locum consultants. The Claimant was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the dismissal was fair and that no breach of contract had occurred.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2011/0232_10_2906.html

===============================================
Leeds Teaching Hospital v Foster UKEAT/0552/10/JOJ

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

The Claimant was employed as a senior security inspector. In 2006 his relationship with his line manager broke down and from 18 October 2006 he was unable to work as a result of stress. He never returned to work and was dismissed by reason of capability on 6 February 2009.

Mr Foster was accepted that he was not fit to return to work at that time.

The Claimant lodged claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination at the Tribunal. He was successful and the Trust appealed.

The Claimant contended that had he been placed on a re-deployment register as a reasonable adjustment that he would have remained in post and not been dismissed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal holding that “If there is a real prospect of an adjustment removing a disabled employee’s disadvantage, that would be sufficient to make an adjustment a reasonable one, but that does not mean that a prospect less than a real prospect would not be sufficient to make the adjustment a reasonable one”.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2011/0052_10_1406.html