Recent legal developments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The key question for consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Child Support Agency v. Truman was whether the appropriate comparator in disability-related discrimination employment cases, previously identified in Clark v. Novacold, should be replaced by the much narrower definition of a comparator given in Lewisham London Borough Council v. Malcolm in 2008, even though that case was heard in the context of housing law. In the event, the EAT considered that this was the correct approach and allowed the appeal, ensuring that in future, when deciding whether the claimant has suffered discrimination for a reason related to his or her disability, his or her treatment would be compared with that of a non-disabled person who is in the same situation as the claimant. Although a more logical definition, it is considerably narrower, and is likely to amount to an additional hurdle for those claiming disability-related discrimination.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)310-315
Number of pages6
JournalLaw Teacher
Volume43
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

discrimination
disability
appeal
housing
human being
Law
event

Cite this

Lane, Jacqueline. / Recent legal developments. In: Law Teacher. 2009 ; Vol. 43, No. 3. pp. 310-315.
@article{94bbfc5f2c884743a3be41c096f02f39,
title = "Recent legal developments",
abstract = "The key question for consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Child Support Agency v. Truman was whether the appropriate comparator in disability-related discrimination employment cases, previously identified in Clark v. Novacold, should be replaced by the much narrower definition of a comparator given in Lewisham London Borough Council v. Malcolm in 2008, even though that case was heard in the context of housing law. In the event, the EAT considered that this was the correct approach and allowed the appeal, ensuring that in future, when deciding whether the claimant has suffered discrimination for a reason related to his or her disability, his or her treatment would be compared with that of a non-disabled person who is in the same situation as the claimant. Although a more logical definition, it is considerably narrower, and is likely to amount to an additional hurdle for those claiming disability-related discrimination.",
keywords = "disability discrimination",
author = "Jacqueline Lane",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1080/03069400903377673",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "310--315",
journal = "Law Teacher",
issn = "0306-9400",
publisher = "NUT",
number = "3",

}

Recent legal developments. / Lane, Jacqueline.

In: Law Teacher, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2009, p. 310-315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recent legal developments

AU - Lane, Jacqueline

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - The key question for consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Child Support Agency v. Truman was whether the appropriate comparator in disability-related discrimination employment cases, previously identified in Clark v. Novacold, should be replaced by the much narrower definition of a comparator given in Lewisham London Borough Council v. Malcolm in 2008, even though that case was heard in the context of housing law. In the event, the EAT considered that this was the correct approach and allowed the appeal, ensuring that in future, when deciding whether the claimant has suffered discrimination for a reason related to his or her disability, his or her treatment would be compared with that of a non-disabled person who is in the same situation as the claimant. Although a more logical definition, it is considerably narrower, and is likely to amount to an additional hurdle for those claiming disability-related discrimination.

AB - The key question for consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Child Support Agency v. Truman was whether the appropriate comparator in disability-related discrimination employment cases, previously identified in Clark v. Novacold, should be replaced by the much narrower definition of a comparator given in Lewisham London Borough Council v. Malcolm in 2008, even though that case was heard in the context of housing law. In the event, the EAT considered that this was the correct approach and allowed the appeal, ensuring that in future, when deciding whether the claimant has suffered discrimination for a reason related to his or her disability, his or her treatment would be compared with that of a non-disabled person who is in the same situation as the claimant. Although a more logical definition, it is considerably narrower, and is likely to amount to an additional hurdle for those claiming disability-related discrimination.

KW - disability discrimination

U2 - 10.1080/03069400903377673

DO - 10.1080/03069400903377673

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 310

EP - 315

JO - Law Teacher

JF - Law Teacher

SN - 0306-9400

IS - 3

ER -