TITLE

LEGAL CHECKLIST

PUB. DATE
February 2008
SOURCE
People Management;2/7/2008, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p21
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the work discrimination case, Environment Agency vs. Rowan. Rowan, a part-time clerk who asked to work at home due to back problems, was refused and claimed disability discrimination. The British Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) found in her favour on the grounds an able-bodied person would not have her difficulty getting into work, and homeworking should have been considered. The EAT said Rowan had not identified the extent and nature of her disadvantage so it was impossible to decide what adjustments should have been made.
ACCESSION #
31324029

 

Related Articles

  • Statutory grievance procedure -- time limits in discrimination claims. Glavina, Joe // Employers Law;Apr2006, p9 

    The article reports the decision of the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the joined cases of Bupa Care Homes v. Cann and Spillett v. Tesco, which concern time limits in discrimination claims. The details of both these disability discrimination claims are presented along with the key...

  • O'Hanlon v Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs. Glavina, Joe; Harris, Judith // Employers Law;Oct2006, p10 

    The article discusses the decision of the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case O'Hanlon versus Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs which deals with disability discrimination and extending company sick pay. The EAT held that an employer would only very rarely be...

  • Child Support Agency (Dudley) v Truman and Countrywide Estate Agents & others v Rice.  // Employers Law;Mar2009, p8 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Great Britain has confirmed that the decision by the House of Lords on disability discrimination which made it much harder for people with disabilities to bring disability discrimination claims, also applies to...

  • LEGAL CHECKLIST.  // People Management;5/21/2009, Vol. 15 Issue 11, p35 

    The article discusses several court cases related to labor in Great Britain. In Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary v Adams, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) ruled that night work can be considered a normal day-to-day activity, in relation to an employee's disability discrimination claim. In...

  • LEGAL CHECKLIST.  // People Management;3/12/2009, Vol. 15 Issue 6, p37 

    This section presents court cases related to employment. In Osborne Clarke Services v Purohit, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the company made an indirect race discrimination when the plaintiff was not allowed to apply because he has no work permit in Great Britain. In...

  • The coming of age claims to tribunals.  // Personnel Today;11/20/2007, p4 

    The article offers information about judgments given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Great Britain on several cases concerning employment discrimination. The Tribunal gave a judgment in favor of a 20-year-old woman, Megan Thomas, who was dismissed for being too young. The Tribunal reversed...

  • in brief.  // Employers Law;Mar2004, p21 

    Presents updates on Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions in Great Britain as of March 2004. Ruling of the EAT on the case of an employee who filed claims of an unfair dismissal against his employer due to whistleblowing; Decision of the EAT regarding the liability of a company for a race...

  • Case round-up. Dempsey, Karen // Personnel Today;6/28/2005, p10 

    The article focuses on a case in which an employee, following her dismissal, brought a sex discrimination claim against both the company and against the managing director, personally. The British Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld her complaints against both parties and determined that the real...

  • Sex discrimination and pregnancy.  // Accountancy;Aug1985, Vol. 96 Issue 1104, p34 

    This article examines a decision of the British Employment Appeal Tribunal in Turley v. Allders Department Stores Ltd. which held that dismissal for pregnancy was not capable of constituting sex discrimination. The Tribunal affirms that it could not be direct discrimination under the Sex...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics