Employment Law – Disability Discrimination – Breach of Duty - Blindness – Error by Tribunal

The case of Latif v Project Management Institute [2007] concerned issues relating to Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The claimant in this case was registered blind, and therefore was a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“the Act”). The respondent institute was a qualifications body within the meaning of s.14 of the Act.

In September 2004, the claimant became a member of the respondent institute. In May 2005, she registered to take the project management professional credential examination. She requested a number of various adjustments in order to help her prepare for and take the examination. More specifically, she sought accommodation in the vicinity of where the examination was to take place, and she asked that she be allowed to take the examination on her own laptop computer in the examination centre, or, alternatively, that her screen reading software be installed on the examination centre computer. She further requested a reader to support her in order to explain diagrams.

Some adjustments were permitted with respect to her taking the examination; she was allowed a reader and given twice the usual time to sit the examination. She was not, however, allowed to take in her own computer. She passed the examination.

Even so, the claimant presented a claim before the employment tribunal alleging that the respondent institute had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to her sitting of the examination. She felt that the adjustments made did not go far enough.

Before the tribunal, a potential adjustment was suggested by the claimant for the first time. The tribunal held that the respondent's failure to conduct a proper assessment of the claimant's needs, and its failure to prove that no further reasonable steps could have been taken had resulted in a breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Act.

The respondent institute appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It submitted that the tribunal had misdirected itself in relation to the duty to carry out an assessment, and in relation to the burden of proof. The appeal was dismissed.

It was held that in this case, the tribunal had erred in both its approach to the duty to carry out assessments and in relation to the burden of proof. However, it was clear on the evidence, and on the reasoning of the tribunal, that it would have reached the same conclusion despite those errors. Furthermore, on the evidence, those conclusions had been properly open to the tribunal.

If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.