The duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010. Environment Agency v Rowan; Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Reasonable adjustments; consultation. There is no separate and distinct duty on an employer to consult a disabled employee about what adjustments might be made: either the employer has made the reasonable adjustment or it has not. It will always be good practice to consult, and failing to do so may jeopardise the employer's legal position, because it cannot rely on a lack of knowledge that consultation would have cured as a shield against a complaint that it failed to make reasonable adjustments [72]. The examples of adjustments in the legislation do not include such a duty, which would be expected to be spelt out in clear terms if Parliament intended it [73].
“Whilst … it will always be good practice for the employer to consult and it will potentially jeopardise the employer’s legal position if he does not do so — because the employer cannot use the lack of knowledge that would have resulted from consultation as a shield to defend a complaint that he has not made reasonable adjustments — there is no separate and distinct duty of this kind.”Elias P, at [72]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; comparative exercise. The EAT (Cox J) held that the comparative exercise required in a reasonable adjustments claim, involving a class or group of non-disabled comparators, differs from the individual like-for-like comparison used in direct discrimination claims. A claimant need not identify a specific non-disabled comparator in otherwise identical circumstances; the facts will often speak for themselves and the identity of comparators will be clearly discernible from the PCP in issue. The Tribunal is only required to specify the identity of comparators where it is appropriate to do so. A dismissal can itself be an unlawful failure to make reasonable adjustments, in which case an additional claim for disability-related discrimination adds nothing.
Reasonable adjustments; where multiple adjustments interact or might work in combination, the tribunal must adopt a holistic approach when considering their reasonableness overall rather than assessing each in isolation.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; absence triggers; attendance management policies can place disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage even if applied 'equally'.
“In my judgment, there is no reason artificially to narrow the concept of what constitutes a “step” within the meaning of section 20(3). Any modification of, or qualification to, the PCP in question which would or might remove the substantial disadvantage caused by the PCP is in principle capable of amounting to a relevant step. The only question is whether it is reasonable for it to be taken.”Elias LJ, at [65]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; s.29 and Sch 2 EqA 2010. A bus operator's policy of merely requesting a non-wheelchair user to vacate the wheelchair space did not go far enough. Where the refusal is unreasonable the driver should consider further steps, such as a firmer request or a short wait. The Supreme Court stopped short of requiring the operator to compel removal.
Disability; reasonable adjustments; failure to offer a trial period in an alternative role can be a failure to make adjustments.
“As always, the starting point is the words of the statute. Where the other elements of section 20(3) … are, as here, found to be fulfilled, then the duty on the respondent is to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take “to avoid” the substantial disadvantage at which the PCP puts the disabled claimant.”HHJ Auerbach, at [18]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.