header-logo header-logo

07 May 2009 / Helena Davies , Naomi Feinstein
Issue: 7368 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

An uncertain prognosis

The new concept of indirect disability discrimination is set to cause confusion, say Naomi Feinstein & Helena Davies

The government's recent announcement that it intends to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005) to incorporate, for the first time, the concept of indirect discrimination, has caused considerable controversy. The concern is that this would make DDA 2005 even more difficult to work with than it is at present.

Currently, DDA 2005 is constructed in a very different way to the other discrimination strands. There are three types of discrimination:

      
      ●     Direct discrimination.

      
      ●     Disability-related discrimination: where the individual has been treated less favourably than other people to whom that disability-related reason does not apply. Disability-related discrimination can be justified if the reason for the treatment is “material and substantial”. It is generally acknowledged that this is not a particularly onerous test.

      
      ●     Failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Problems caused by Malcolm

The House of Lords' judgment last year in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] All ER (D)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll