Many court decisions have a separate page on this website. These are listed below and on the following pages (see links at the bottom). A separate page lists only cases on stammering.
M v Joseph Heler
The claimant applied for two jobs with the employer, saying in his CV that he had ‘excellent communication skills despite having a stammer’. He was not appointed. He claimed this was because the employer perceived him to have a disability within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The employment tribunal rejected…
M v Jacksons Dairy
The claimant mentioned his stammer in his CV when applying for a job. He was rejected without an interview. He did not claim that he had a disability within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA), but claimed that he was rejected because the employer perceived he had a disability. The employment…
Rubery v Ministry of Defence
S.121 Equality Act 2010 (EqA) requires serving members of the armed forces to bring a service complaint before starting an EqA tribunal claim. The Court of Appeal rejected an argument that for a matter in respect of which no service complaint was permitted, s.121 should be re-interpreted to allow a…
Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom: paid “volunteers”
The Court of Appeal held that Coastal Rescue Officers (CROs) had legal rights as “workers”, despite being called volunteers. For many of their activities they had the right to claim remuneration (not just expenses), if they chose to do so. The court held that legally, on each call-out there was…
Oni v LB Waltham Forest: worker status under Equality Act
An employment tribunal has held that foster carers can make employment tribunal claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) against their local authority, rather than just county court claims. The decision is likely to have wider significance beyond foster carers, if upheld. Oni and others v London Borough of Waltham…
K v Glasgow Caledonian University
The claimant stammered. An issue was whether his mental impairment (stress etc) was a disability. The employment tribunal held there was not enough evidence that various alleged effects of his mental impairment, including his stammering, were substantial effects on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. So he had not…
R (Karmakar & BMA) v Royal College of General Practitioners
The High Court upheld a claim that it was irrational for RCGP to simply refuse to consider additional attempts at a written assessment for becoming a GP, if the candidate was later diagnosed with a disability that would have entitled her to reasonable adjustments. Her claim therefore succeeded under administrative…
British Airways v Rollett & others
The Employment Appeal Tribunal accepted that under the EU court decision in CHEZ, s.19 Equality Act (EqA) should be re-interpreted to allow claims for indirect discrimination by people who did not have the protected characteristic but suffered the same disadvantage. For claims arising after 2023, this is in any event…
Lipton v BA Cityflier: cases arising pre-Brexit
According to a majority of the Supreme Court, even in a claim that arose before Brexit (ie before the end of 2020), British higher courts making decisions now are not necessarily bound to follow EU court decisions made before Brexit. However, British courts are bound by the text of the…
Pipe v Coventry University
The claimant’s disabilities made it difficult for him to get a PhD. The university required candidates for promotion to be on a pathway to a PhD or equivalent. It also required there to be a business case for the role. The claimant’s disability discrimination claims failed, because there was no…
Habib v Dave Whelan Sports: credibility of disabled claimant/witness
The claimant made various employment tribunal (ET) claims, which the ET rejected. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that the ET, in deciding to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s evidence, had relied on behaviour which could arise from her dyslexia, without considering the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The ET…
Stena Drilling PTE v Smith: jurisdiction
The EAT said that to have jurisdiction in an Equality Act (EqA) claim, an employment tribunal needs “international jurisdiction” (under ss.15C or 15D CJJA if the dispute relates to an individual contract of employment), and also the dispute must fall within the territorial reach of the EqA under cases such…
Anderson v CAE Crewing: EqA liability for agents
The EAT considered the test for who is an “agent” under s.109 Equality Act (EqA), so that the person for whom they act is liable for them under the EqA. The tribunal EAT held that the doctors in this case might be agents within s.109 even though they were in…
Bodis v Lindfield
The EAT held that under s.15 EqA, unfavourable treatment can be “because of” something arising from the disability even though the something is only a minor component of the reason for the unfavourable treatment, provided it is “significant” so as to be an “effective cause”. S.15 could apply even though…
Rentokil Initial UK v Miller
The claimant was no longer able to do his job, due to his disability. The employer considered him not suitable for an alternative role, but a employment tribunal held it would have been a reasonable adjustment to offer him a trial period in it. The EAT upheld the tribunal decision,…
