Law v Pace Micro Technology Plc [2003] UKEAT 1020_02_2907 (29 July 2003)

Law v Pace Micro Technology Plc [2003] UKEAT 1020_02_2907 (29 July 2003)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer's justification for not offering the post on a part-time basis met the low threshold of 'substantial' under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Tribunal properly refrained from substituting its own view for that of the employer where credible business reasons were provided.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 1020_02_2907
Parties
Appellant: Mr Law; Respondent: Pace Micro Technology plc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Appeal Hearing After Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Redundancy, Justification Defence, Reasonable Adjustments
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Justification Defence Reasonable Adjustments

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Law

Appellant

Pace Micro Technology plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Appeal Hearing After Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's refusal to offer a part-time Health and Safety Officer post to a disabled employee constituted a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the employer's justification for not making the adjustment was 'substantial' under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was for a reason related to disability

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer's justification for not offering the post on a part-time basis met the low threshold of 'substantial' under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Tribunal properly refrained from substituting its own view for that of the employer where credible business reasons were provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Cross-appeal by employer cannot be pursued
  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the cross-appeal issue refused