Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court of Appeal (Ward, Sedley and Hooper LJJ) dismissed Mrs O'Hanlon's appeal and held in favour of the Revenue. It held that it would be invidious for an employer to have to determine whether to increase sick pay payments for everyone, or separate a disability related element out, merely because it created additional financial hardship for a disabled claimant.
A reasonable accommodation is defined by the US Department of Justice as "change or adjustment to a job or work environment that permits a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the job application process, to perform the essential functions of a job, or to enjoy benefits and privileges of employment equal to those ...
Such favourable treatment was not at all precluded by s 6(7), which should be read subject to the previous provisions of the section. Furthermore, the duty under the DDA 1995 to make reasonable adjustments overrode the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 s 7 requiring that staff be appointed by merit.
less favourable treatment for a reason related to a disabled person's disability; and; failure to make a "reasonable adjustment". "Reasonable adjustment" or, as it is known in some other jurisdictions, 'reasonable accommodation', is the radical [citation needed] concept that makes the DDA 1995 so different from the older legislation. Instead of ...
It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who need them because of a disability to apply for a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the employer can show that undue hardship will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ...
Paul v National Probation Service [2004] IRLR 190, [2003] UKEAT 0290_03_1311 is a UK labour law case, concerning the duty of an employer to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities.
Amazon employees are up-in-arms over a recent note from CEO Andy Jassy alerting them to a change in policy about remote work. In a Sept. 16 letter, Jassy said that employees would be expected to ...
State of California, No. S137770 (Cal. August 23, 2007) [65] was a case in which the California Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether an employee suing the state is required to prove they are able to perform "essential" job duties, regardless of whether or not there was "reasonable accommodation", or if the employer must prove the ...