Case law on unlawful discrimination relevant to safety and health at work has been enlarged by a judgment in the Upper Tribunal on 22 May 2013.

The Upper Tribunal - which is equivalent to the High Court - was told people who have conditions that mean they lack insight can struggle to gather the right documents, including doctors reports, needed for a successful claim.

The judge ruled that people with mental illness, autism or learning difficulties were discriminated by tests which failed to adequately take evidence of these conditions in to account. Implications for safety/health practitioners relate to risk assessments and hazard controls which may require a person with any of these conditions (which may include depression, anxiety or other symptoms associated with stress).

Unlike safety claims, there is no upper limit in law on successful claims for unfair or unlawful discrimination with the effect that some solicitors very candidly state their preference to look indications of discrimination in the event of some injuries to a person with one of the conditions referred to.

Walker

Just quite simple matters with far-reaching practical implications for safety management:

1. "FireSafety" was challenged earlier for recording his experiences pursuing the safety/equality issues and I indicated earlier how there is no legal boundary in England and Wales between 'safety' and 'discrimination' statutory law while the judgement I reported today indicates, yet again, how case law can have very far-reaching relevance to safety management.

2. I make no comment about 'people in positions of responsibility' other than to highlight that. contrary to some who objected to the issues raised in relation to the child with spina bifida, these issues remain very relevant to causes advanced by the IOSH and are the focus of pro-active claims by savvy solicitors.

Not a very big deal for compliant-aware but potentially a very, very expensive one for any employer unwilling or unable to appreciate its relevance.

Alex

Right from the beginning "Fire" was at pains to make clear compensation was of no interest to him.

However, there were posters who were so single minded in making their own obscure points, this was ignored time and again.

Kieran was referring to a judgement about claimants for benefits who have learning difficulties are discriminated against by DWP because they have a lesser ability to understand what is being asked of them.

The judge ruled that the work capability assessment puts people with mental illness, autism, and learning difficulties at a substantial disadvantage.

DWP will appeal.

This was the same legislation that I used to prove my point.

Equality Act, as I understand, is H&S legislation.

Well done on this and making a stand against the ridiculous behaviour of the school.

Interestingly people here complain it isnt safety? Go back a couple of pages and read what this forum is about:

"Here you can discuss health, safety and environmental issues in the broadest sense - risk management, environmental protection, healthcare, hygiene, education, quality management or business - the topics are endless"

Also, that us wishing you success represents 'double standards' - very strange view of the safety industry indeed. My angle is for practitioners to protect their organisation from spurious claims, other claims that are justified are entirely reasonable, and I suspect that is the view of many in H&S. I've not met anyone in H&S who views all claims as wrong, just some of them!