Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
In Metroline Travel Ltd v S, the EAT has ruled that diet controlled type 2 diabetes does not necessarily constitute a ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010 (Act).
S avoided sugary drinks to control his type 2 diabetes. An employment tribunal decided that the condition amounted to a disability. Metroline appealed, and the EAT disagreed with the tribunal. It ruled that the abstention from sugary drinks was not sufficient to constitute a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, which is a crucial aspect of the statutory definition of ‘disability’.
This decision clarifies that employees with diet controlled conditions including type 2 diabetes, and by extension those with nut allergies and other such intolerances, are unlikely to succeed in establishing that they are disabled within the meaning of the Act. It is a common misconception that diabetic employees (both type 1 and type 2) are necessarily disabled – the matter is one of fact and degree.
The Home Office recently launched a central registry for modern slavery statements. A growing number of educational organisations, including a number of universities, have published statements on the registry.
View blog
35,000 workers working in ASDA’s retail business sought to compare themselves to workers at distribution depots for equal pay purposes. Find out more about this Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Supreme Court judgment represents the conclusion on whether or not “sleep in time” should be classified as working time, when calculating the National Minimum Wage (NMW).
In a pivotal and much anticipated judgment for the social care sector, the Supreme Court has ruled that workers are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all time spent on a sleep-in shift.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up