Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, which ruled that the Appellant's grounds for appeal disclosed no reasonable grounds. The Appellant, employed by the Respondent, claimed that reasonable adjustments should have been made to accommodate her disabled daughter under Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC. The court concluded that Article 5 does not extend to associated persons and is focused on disabled employees, prospective employees, and trainees. The court also found no basis to interpret the Equality Act 2010 to include the Appellant's claim and held that Article 5 does not have direct effect because of its open-ended nature. The appeal was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE LAWS: This is an appeal with permission granted by Lewison LJ on 21 November 2013 against a decision of Langstaff J, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("the EAT"), made on 16 July 2013.
The decision was arrived at pursuant to Rule 3(10) of the EAT Rules 1993 and was to the effect that Ground 2 of the Appellant's grounds of appeal to the EAT disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the appeal. Ground 2 alleged that:
" . . . the Respondent was obliged to make adjustments to a PCP applied to its employee, the Claimant, to enable the Claimant's disabled daughter (a person associated with the Claimant) to undergo training and education."
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the "EHRC") intervened in the appeal by permission of Underhill LJ granted on 30 April 2014. Mr Mitchell has addressed us on behalf of the EHRC this morning.
"PCP" is an acronym for "provision, criterion or practice", an expression appearing in section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, dealing with an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. I shall come to the domestic legislation in due course.
The case principally turns upon the proper interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC " . . . establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation" ("the Directive"). The relevant part of Article 5 provides:
"In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in or advance in employment, or to undergo training unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer."
The facts of the case, as asserted in amended particulars advanced to support what is now Ground 2, are succinctly summarised at paragraph 14 of Mr Pilgerstorfer's skeleton argument. Slightly adapted, the summary is as follows. The Appellant has been employed by the Respondent since 30 April 1998 pursuant to a contract of employment. She is a civilian employee attached to the British armed forces. From 1 September 2004 she was employed as an Inclusion Support Development Teacher.
The Respondent operated a provision, criterion and/or practice ("PCP") whereby the Appellant was required to provide the services required of her with