BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rudzki v. Manchester Metropolitan University [1999] UKEAT 640_99_2809 (28 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/640_99_2809.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 640_99_2809 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
For the Appellant | MR GEORGE (of Counsel) ELAAS |
JUDGE PETER CLARK:
"(1) For the purpose of this Part, an employer discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified."
"14. …None of the actions by the selection panel can give rise to an inference that the disability of the applicant formed any part in their deliberations."
"11. The Tribunal also felt that the selection panel and in particular Professor Pendleton, when considering the applicant's case, formed the view that the applicant had been less than forthcoming in providing details of his academic and professional history and may even have come to the conclusion that the applicant was being "economical with the truth" with regard to the relevance of his qualifications, his experience and, in particular, his publications. Nevertheless, the Tribunal formed the view that such inferences as the panel drew from the applicant's application form were genuine and in no way connected to his disability."
"7. In the third paragraph of the letter of 24 April 1999, the applicant states that the respondents admitted that no attempt was made to make any reasonable adjustment. However the Tribunal was satisfied, as confirmed in the extended reasons given, that the decision of the selection panel not to shortlist the applicant was based upon their assessment of his suitability for the positions having regard to the contents of his application form, irrespective of the fact that he had identified that he was disabled. In those circumstances, any question relating to the duty of the respondents to make a reasonable adjustment within the meaning of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not arise."