Mart v Assessment Services Inc [2019]
Posted In: Case Law-
Decision Number
UKEAT/0032/18/SS -
Legal Body
Employment Appeal Tribunal (UKEAT) -
Type of Claim / Jurisdiction
Discrimination
The claimant/appellant claimed that she had been indirectly discriminated as a result of her disability. Whilst she had a facial disfigurement and depression, which would be regarded as disabilities she based her claim on diplopia (double vision). The appellant corrected this double vision using contact lenses but this was regarded as ‘cosmetically unattractive’ as it blacked out the eye.
The question for the Employment Appeals Tribunal was whether this was a disability under the definition given to disability in Schedule 1, Para 5 of the Equality Act 2010 (Schedule 1, Para. 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland). This states that
Already a subscriber?
Click here to login and access the full article.
Log in now to read the full articleDon't miss out, register today!
Are you fully aware of the benefits of Legal-Island's Employment Law Update Service? We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact on your business.
Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
Ensure your organisation’s policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team at Worthingtons Solicitors
Disclaimer:
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
Jason Elliott BL
Barrister
The main content of this article was provided by Jason Elliott BL. Email jasondelliott@outlook.com
View all articles by Jason Elliott BL