1/ Mallon v Aecom Ltd: EAT allows appeal against strike out of a dyspraxic's reasonable adjustment claim concerned with the disadvantage in having to fill in online job application forms. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6037b49f…#ukemplaw
2/ Mr Mallon was a serial claimant, having brought over 30 similar claims, 29 of which he'd withdrawn and three of which he'd lost (one with costs). I suspect that heavily influenced the EJ confronted with a strike out application.
3/ The EJ analysed the case on the basis of a PCP to apply by way of an online form. It held M did not suffer a substantial disadvantage given that he could get help and doubtless influenced by knowledge that M had filled in online forms elsewhere (including for the ET claims).
4/ The EAT allowed M's appeal. As seems to be the case with all of HHJ Tayler's judgments, the judgment is full of the practical observations of a formerly highly experienced EJ.
5/ 1st on strike out, he urges parties to consider proportionality under the overriding objective before applying. Pleasingly he takes a similar view as I do that applying solely for the less exacting deposit order is often a far more sensible tactic.
6/ 2ndly, HHJ Tayler bemoaned the regularity with which ETs presume a reasonable adjustments claim through the PCP lens (the 1st requirement) rather than as a physical feature or auxiliary aid case.
7/ This was one such a case. The ET had analysed the claim on the basis of a PCP to apply by online form, whilst the claim ought to have been considered (at least additionally) as a failure to provide an auxiliary aid case.
8/ Finally, on substantial disadvantage, HHJ Tayler was sympathetic to submissions that a person ought not to be expected to seek out help to avoid substantial disadvantage. M had said he'd not ask his wife to help as she wasn't his carer, & he was embarrassed to rely on friends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Right, a couple of weeks' backlog on judgment threads & I'll start with a biggie for all students of whistleblowing, Linden J's judgment in Twixt v Armes. It strengthens a host of legal obligation whistleblowing claims in the stroke of a pen. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6034caf0…#ukemplaw
2/ The case concerns a research scientist & founder of DNA sequencing & amplification technology, used for amplifying the DNA of infectious diseases. Having transferred his shares in his company, he later had various concerns about false +ves & -ves from testing.
3/ Those concerns were raised in various emails & conversations on which he subsequently relied in bringing various claims, including whistleblowing detriment & dismissal claims. At a PH, the company tried unsuccessfully to strike the PIDs out. They failed & appealed.
#uber THREAD 1/ So, as we now know, the Supreme Court has ruled that #Uber drivers are workers & are entitled to pay whenever logged on & prepared to take a passenger. Here's the link to the judgment: supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…#ukemplaw
2/ We all know the basic facts. There are 40,000 Uber drivers across the UK & 2 million people registered on the App (40,000 is a heck of a multiplier when working out the cost of this one!).
3/ Remember the key facts highlighting in the attachments below. They are crucial to the decision. They concentrate on the constraints placed on the driver - matters of subordination, dependency & limits on their ability to develop business opportunities from passengers.
1/ Well, we didn't have to wait long to see why this morning's put-up hatchet job in the Times was commissioned - the floating of ill-conceived policies reliant on this morning's ill-conceived straw men. thetimes.co.uk/article/how-ca…#ukemplaw
2/ 1st, as @seanjonesqc feared - reversal of Marshall (No. 2) in which the compensatory limits for discrimination claims were removed thanks to the ECJ. The straw man here is that discrim claims are being brought to overcome unfair dismissal limits & qualifying periods.
3/ 2nd, changing the ET to a tribunal in which costs follow the event - a move which in one stroke would stultify an enormous number of meritorious & potentially victorious claims & massively rebalance the ET dice in the employer's favour. Built on a straw man of £1m costs.
I've a theory about where this hatchet job Times investigation may have come from. The main report includes the table below. Note the stress on discrim claims settling at a higher rate - the implicit (& wrong) suggestion being high settlement rate equals lower merit.
2/ It's true that discrimination claims settled at a higher than average rate. But so do whistleblowing & unfair dismissal claims, for example. Why highlight discrimination? I wonder whether the answer lies in Liz Truss & her odd speech from December.
3/ Here's my live tweeting of her speech. It really was truly bizarre:
She effectively spat in the face of race & sex discrimination as identity politics, deriding unconscious bias & positive discrimination as the danger of low expectations.
1/ A really odd hatchet job on employment tribunals in today's Times. Its purpose is unclear though I worry it might be part of the "we should reintroduce employment tribunal fees" PR campaign. #ukemplawthetimes.co.uk/article/tribun…
2/ The piece starts by railing against the appointment of full time judges lacking any judicial experience. Erm, that'll be the 2019 cohort then, where no prior experience was necessary. Strange to report on that in 2021.
3/ Many of us will have been in front of salaried EJs who had no previous judicial experience. In my experience, the 2019 cohort have been uniformly excellent. But the author (Dominic Kennedy) is particularly concerned with trade union & town hall lawyers.
Liz Truss gave her speech on the concepts underlying the Equality Act at 2pm today. It's available here: cps.org.uk. I thought I'd tweet on it in real time (albeit an hour or so after delivered.
She starts by talking up the notion of what I suppose you'd call the British dream. She acknowledges though the equality journey isn't finished, with diminished opportunities.
It's a speech which starts from the point of geographical discrimination - opportunity in the south east, lack of opportunity elsewhere. She hails the current government as being elected on a mandate to sort that out - thanks to the knocking down of the 'red wall'.