1. Disability Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Council Directive 2000/78 EC Amending Regulations 2004 Disability Discrimination Act 2005

2. Disability Direct Discrimination Disability Related Discrimination Failure to make a reasonable adjustment Associative Discrimination Indirect Disability Discrimination

3. Disability: SCA Packaging v Boyle A condition which has occurred in the past and may reoccur

4. The Northern Ireland Tribunal The provision: it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur Industrial Tribunal: the tribunal held that the vocal nodes were "likely" to recur if the claimant did not follow her voice management regime

5. Northern Ireland Court of Appeal The test is not “more probable than not” "could well happen" rather than the higher threshold of "more probable than not" The House of Lords agreed

6. House of Lords - obiter Where someone is following a course of treatment on medical advice, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, an employer can assume that, without the treatment, the impairment is "likely" to recur. If the impairment had a substantial effect on the patient's day-to-day life before it was treated, the employer can also assume - again in the absence of any contra-indication - that, if it does recur, its effect will be substantial.

7. Direct Discrimination: Watts 2006

8. Discrimination Related to Disability The end of disability related discrimination as we knew it Lewisham v Malcolm

9. Facts – Mental impairment – Council tenant proposed purchase of his flat – Sub-let flat (contrary to his tenancy agreement) and had gone to live elsewhere – Council declined to sell & served notice to evict

10. Malcolm’s Argument I suffer from a mental impairment (schizophrenia) I only sub-let the flat because I was suffering an episode of mental impairment which was note being controlled at the time I am being evicted because I agreed to sub-let the flat Therefore the eviction is related to my disability and unlawful

11. Lewisham’s argument You are not disabled Even if you are disabled, we were unaware of that and so the decision could not be related to your disability Further, anyone who sub-let their flat would be evicted Therefore, you are not being treated less favourably than someone who is not disabled for a reason related to your disability

12. Trial Judge Malcolm did not sub-let the flat because of his condition Malcolm’s condition did not amount to a disability under the Act

13. Court of Appeal The trial judge was wrong on both counts – Disability – Causation The Court of Appeal also found – Knowledge of the disability was unnecessary – The comparator was someone who had not sub-let the flat Therefore the council did discriminate against Malcolm

14. House of Lords The court of appeal was wrong to overturn the trial judge’s findings on causation – This meant the case failed on the facts (3:2) Further, 4:1 the Lords decided that the correct comparator was another person who had sub-let their flat Baroness Hale dissented

15. Failure to make Reasonable Adjustment Practice Criterion Provision Physical

16. Reasonable Adjustment Knowledge – The employer must be aware The adjustment must make some difference

17. What next: indirect discrimination Articles 1 and 2 of the directive prohibit – any discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of disability – Whether direct or indirect

18. Association: Coleman v Attridge – Sharon Coleman was employed as a legal secretary by Attridge Law, a firm of solicitors. – She had a disabled son, who was born in 2002. He suffered from a disability – He required specialised and particular care. – Ms Coleman was his primary carer.

19. Associative Indirect Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation – National law Exclusion If national law does not impose an obligation to make a reasonable adjustment/reasonable accommodation then the provisions relating to indirect discrimination may apply