The Employment
Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently handed down an important judgment dealing with time limits for discrimination claims relating
to employment.
The two cases involved in this judgement, Mrs Cann
versus Bupa and Mrs Spillett versus Tesco Stores Ltd, were supported by the DRC.
Under the Employment Act 2002, an employee who wishes
to present a claim of discrimination to a tribunal must first set out the claim in writing and send a copy to their employer.
The claim cannot be heard if the employee submitted
the claim more than a month after the end of the “original time limit”, which is three months from the effective
date of discrimination (in this case, dismissal).
Under the DDA, the time limit for presenting a claim
is three months from the date of the act of discrimination complained of, subject to extension where a tribunal considers
it ‘just and equitable’ in all the circumstances.
The EAT held that even where a grievance was submitted
more than four months after the act complained of (and therefore more than a month past the three month primary time limit
in the DDA), a tribunal’s ‘just and equitable’ discretion to allow a discrimination claim to proceed can
still be exercised. That includes giving a tribunal the power to consider a complaint made outside the primary limitation
period when reasonable. Mrs Cann’s case has now been given extended time for bringing her complaint of disability discrimination.
Taken from the DRC Email Bulletin March 2006, 23rd March 2006
Debenhams
is the first to be sued over latest changes to the Disability Discrimination Act:
Debenhams will
become the first retailer to be sued under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for failing to improve physical access
to goods and services within its Derby store.
Greg Jackson, a 43-year old wheelchair-user, is suing the retailer because he has been
denied access to a section of the menswear department which can only be reached via a set of steps. The Disability Rights
Commission is supporting him in his case.
Greg Jackson commented:
“It’s unacceptable that Debenhams are refusing to make
any adjustments for disabled people. Improvements to access the menswear section in the Derby store would be relatively cheap and simple to make. Instead, I’m in the embarrassing situation of having to ask for clothes to be brought down to me by a shop assistant
which means it’s impossible to browse properly and places pressure on me to buy. It also emphasises and draws attention
to my impairment and so I feel like I’m being singled out because of my disability.”
The high street retailer, with 123 stores in the UK and Ireland and annual profits last year totalling
£300.5m, failed to make improvements to the menswear section in Derby despite several requests from Mr Jackson dating back to January 2004.
Bert Massie, Chairman of the DRC, said:
“An independent report for the DRC shows that some 20 Debenhams
stores pose similar access barriers to those found in Derby. This is unacceptable. Debenhams has had many years to make these changes yet unlike their competitors there is no
centrally managed plan to make access improvements that would meet their legal duties. Instead, they appear satisfied in doling
out a second class service to disabled customers.”
Part three of the DDA places specific duties on shops and business
that provide services available to the public to alter, adapt or remove physical barriers that make it unreasonably difficult
for disabled people to receive fair treatment. The law, passed in 1995, gave businesses a nine-year breathing space to plan
and prepare for changes that would benefit the UK’s 10 million disabled people with a combined spending power of £80 billion. The equal access provision of the
DDA came into force on October 1 2004.
Mr Massie continued:
“Businesses that make their services open to all are benefiting
from fair access laws and from disabled shoppers who have a disposable income estimated at £80 billion a year. Bad access
is bad for business.
“The extent of improvements needed depends on the relative size of the retailer and its level of resources. Debenhams,
as a large retailer with 123 stores and a £300 million-plus profit last year, should be doing more. Offering to bring the
goods out to Mr Jackson might be acceptable in a corner shop with limited resources, but the relatively meagre cost to a big
chain like Debenhams of installing a ramp makes this practice unreasonable. Likewise, when you consider the fact that between
one third and half of all goods ordered over the Internet are sent back because they are the wrong size it is clearly an inferior
service.”
Taken from the DRC Website, 29th July 2005
