Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions Posted In: Case Law
Decision NumberEAT 107
Legal BodyEmployment Appeals Tribunal (EAT)
Type of Claim / JurisdictionDiscrimination and Equality
The claimant worked for the respondent interviewing benefit claimants. His claim related to a provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) where he was required to achieve a particular rate of attendance to avoid being subject to the absence management procedure. He said that this put him at a disadvantage on the basis of his disability and that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments as per the legislation. He also made complaints against other PCPs such as being flexible when he took his morning break and the requirement to undertake excessive workload.
The Tribunal, at first instance, rejected the claimant’s claim. This was on the basis that the treatment of the
Already a subscriber?
Click here to login and access the full article.Log in now to read the full article
Don't miss out, start your free trial 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
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.