Wade v Sheffield Hallam University (Disability Discrimination : Reasonable adjustments) [2013] UKEAT 0194_12_1504 (15 April 2013)

Wade v Sheffield Hallam University (Disability Discrimination : Reasonable adjustments) [2013] UKEAT 0194_12_1504 (15 April 2013)

Although the duty to make reasonable adjustments was engaged, the adjustment sought by the Claimant—automatic appointment without meeting essential criteria—was not reasonable. The employer was entitled to require that the Claimant meet the essential requirements of the evolved role, and the adjustment proposed would have required the employer to appoint someone not appointable under those criteria.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0194_12_1504
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Competitive Interview Process, Redeployment, Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Competitive Interview Process Redeployment Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee by requiring her to undergo a competitive interview process for redeployment.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the duty to make reasonable adjustments was engaged, the adjustment sought by the Claimant—automatic appointment without meeting essential criteria—was not reasonable. The employer was entitled to require that the Claimant meet the essential requirements of the evolved role, and the adjustment proposed would have required the employer to appoint someone not appointable under those criteria.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed