Labour’s employment law proposals
On 10th October 2024, the government published its Employment Rights Bill (parliament.uk) and Next Steps to Make Work Pay (gov.uk).
I’ve added these to my Proposed changes page, so far as they apply to disability discrimination under the EqA. For example:
- Third party harassment proposals – Labour’s Employment Rights Bill proposes to expressly allow EqA claims against an employer who permits harassment by third parties, such as customers.
- Unfair dismissal rights are to apply from day one, though with modifications in the first months of employment. Added later: government’s Factsheet: Unfair Dismissal in the Employment Rights Bill (pdf, gov.uk).
Stammeringlaw is 25 years old in autumn 2024
I started this website back in autumn 1999. This page looks back over the past five years: 25th anniversary of stammeringlaw.
Also thank you very much to STAMMA for publishing 25 years of Stammeringlaw (stamma.org).
Report on oracy in schools
The Oracy Commission report in October 2024 proposes that “oracy” – including ability to articulate ideas orally – should be a central part of school education. However, any proposals should value stammered speech. See Oracy and stammering.
Starbucks day of action, October 2024
Starbucks’ policy of asking customers for their names creates barriers for people who stammer. Following a day of action against them, Starbucks has now been in touch with STAMMA, and will hopefully soon be discussing how to make its shops more accessible. More: Starbucks day of action, October 2024.
K v Glasgow Caledonian University
In K v Glasgow Caledonian University, the claimant stammered. The 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 shown his mental impairment was a disability within the EqA.
Also updated ‘Disability’: longer-term variations, to which I link from that case.
Case on GP professional exams
In R (Karmakar & BMA) v Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024, 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 law. This meant the court did not have to consider her Equality Act claims, but it did so and concluded that they would fail (despite the treatment being irrational).
With respect, I have problems with the court’s reasoning on the EqA: My comments.
Indirect disability discrimination
In Minis Childcare v Hilton Webb the employer used normal font sizes in documents, 10-12 point. The EAT implied that this was not likely to be indirect disability discrimination under s.19 EqA, because use of these font sizes in documents for people generally was likely to be justified. Producing documents in a larger font size for the claimant could be required as a reasonable adjustment. However, her reasonable adjustment claim had failed because the employer did not have the requisite knowledge of her disability and disadvantage.
Also, related to Minis Childcare, I’ve added new pages:
- Knowledge of disability in indirect discrimination, and
- Justification defence for indirect discrimination is easier than for other disability claims.
I’ve also split off onto a new page and reviewed “Same disadvantage” indirect discrimination (s.19A)“.
Also updated, the EU case on that: CHEZ v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia.
Justification under s.15: Is it sometimes the general practice that must be justified?
A new, rather difficult technical page: Justification under s.15: Is it sometimes the general practice that must be justified?
There may be cases – such as academic competence standards, perhaps, and other (probably) exceptional cases – where under s.15 EqA it is a general rule etc that has to be justified, rather than the treatment of the claimant in their particular circumstances.
On the possible application of this principle to competence standards, I’ve also updated Oral assessments at university: the rules>Can s.15 justification test require exceptions to a competence standard?
REUL Act: October 2024 changes no longer taking effect
S.6 Retained EU Law Act would make it somewhat easier for higher courts to depart from pre-2021 EU case law, and enable lower courts to refer cases to higher courts to ask whether they should depart from it.
S.6 was to take effect from 1st October 2024. However, this is no longer happening. In September 2024 the Labour government repealed the regulations which would have brought s.6 into force. It is unclear whether s.6 will be brought into force in future.
More: Retained EU Law Act 2023>S.6 no longer takes effect in October 2024.
Also updated Brexit: Effect of EU law when interpreting Equality Act, from 2024.
Consultation draft of revisions to Services Code
In October 2024 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published a consultation draft (EHRC website) of changes to the statutory Services Code of Practice, relating to services, public functions and associations. Statutory Codes of Practice are not binding, but courts should take them into account as regards how they apply the Equality Act. I’ve updated Guidance and Codes of Practice to mention the revised draft.
- Previous updates Website updates July to August 2024.
