The European Court of Justice has ruled that, whilst obesity is not of itself a ‘disability’, the effects of obesity on a worker’s life could be deemed a ‘disability’.

The Court of Appeal has held that a beauty consultant who provided her services via a chain of companies was not ‘in employment’ under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore could not claim discrimination.

A male employee who argued that his employer’s failure to pay him enhanced additional paternity pay was directly and indirectly discriminatory was unsuccessful in his claim. The Tribunal held that the appropriate comparator for direct discrimination is a female applicant for additional paternity leave who is the female spouse or civil partner of someone on maternity leave and, therefore, the claimant could not establish that he had been treated less favourably because he was a man. In any event, it held that the disparity in treatment was a proportionate means of keeping more women at Ford.

A Tribunal has held that a payment made to a claimant on the termination of his employment which related to discrimination and injury to feelings was taxable as a termination payment because it was connected with termination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer failed to make reasonable adjustments to redeploy one of its disabled employees who was at risk of redundancy and could not attend interviews. The EAT held that the employer should have made reasonable adjustments and offered an alternative way of assessing the employee’s suitability for redeployment roles, even though the employee had been unresponsive when HR suggested alternative roles.

The Advocate General has given an opinion that ‘severe’ obesity could amount to a disability under the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. He thought that only people with a body mass index of 40 or over would suffer sufficient hindrance to participation in professional life to be considered disabled.

A decision by the Court of Appeal confirmed that an employer was not under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for a non-disabled employee whose daughter had Down’s syndrome. The Court of Appeal held that although employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for their employees who have disabilities, they are not under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for an employee who does not have a disability but is associated with someone who does.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) held that when considering whether a dismissal was discriminatory on the grounds of age, tribunals should consider the mental processes of those influencing the decision makers, as well as the decision makers themselves.

The Court of Appeal has held that the poor treatment of vulnerable migrant workers because of their immigration status is not race discrimination.

In Crime Reduction Initiatives (CRI) v Lawrence UKEAT/0319/13, the EAT held that a poorly drafted letter inviting the claimant to a disciplinary meeting when it should have referred to a capability meeting which had the effect of deterring her from attending was not relevant to the question of whether her employer had been objectively justified in deciding to dismiss her.

The EAT recently held that it is not discriminatory to dismiss a woman for absence due to post-natal depression where that absence continues after the end of her maternity leave. Where an employee is absent after her maternity leave due to a pregnancy related illness, the employer is entitled to take into account the absence after maternity leave and compare that period with any period of sickness of a man.