Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (Disability Discrimination: Reasonable adjustments) [2014] UKEAT 0279_14_1112 (11 December 2014)

Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (Disability Discrimination: Reasonable adjustments) [2014] UKEAT 0279_14_1112 (11 December 2014)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law; it correctly determined for itself, on all the evidence, whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments. The duty is to do what is reasonable, not necessarily to accept the claimant's preferred adjustment. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0279_14_1112
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Ms Makuchova); Respondent: Respondent (Hotel Chain)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Unfair Dismissal, Unlawful Deductions From Wages
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Unfair Dismissal Unlawful Deductions From Wages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Ms Makuchova)

Appellant

Respondent (Hotel Chain)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by adopting an incorrect test for reasonableness of adjustments

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law; it correctly determined for itself, on all the evidence, whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments. The duty is to do what is reasonable, not necessarily to accept the claimant's preferred adjustment. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer's proposed adjustments were reasonable and that the claimant's refusal to attempt them extinguished any further duty to be more interventionist regarding alternative roles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed