The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that obesity can constitute a disability in certain circumstances if it impairs a person’s ability to work.
The ruling will have major implications for employers in the UK who may have to make adjustments for overweight employees or run the risk of discrimination claims.
The court made it clear that being overweight was not in itself a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Directive, but could be considered so if it created an impairment which prevented a person being able to work on an equal footing with other employees.
The ruling stated: “The concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.
“While no general principle of EU law prohibits, in itself, discrimination on grounds of obesity, that condition falls within the concept of ‘disability’ where, under particular conditions, it hinders the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.”
The ruling makes it clear that the cause of the obesity is irrelevant in terms of a person’s legal rights, even if it is as a result of the person’s gluttony and lifestyle.
The ruling says: “The directive has the object of implementing equal treatment and aims in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to or participate in employment. In addition, it would run counter to the aim of the directive if its application was dependent on the origin of the disability.”
The case that prompted the ruling involved a Danish child minder, Karsten Kaltoft, who was dismissed for being so overweight that he needed help to tie a child’s shoelaces.
The court didn’t define the level of Body Mass Index that would be required to class an employee as obese. It said such decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
Employers may wish to re-assess their employment policies to take account of the ruling.
Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law.
Tenancy deposit error prevents landlord repossessing property
A landlord has been prevented from serving a possession notice because the tenant’s deposit had not been placed in an authorised protection scheme.
This was in spite of the fact that that the deposit had been paid before the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) regulations came into force.
The case involved a tenant who had started a tenancy in 2002 and paid a deposit. The tenancy was renewed in 2005. This was after the TDS regulations were introduced. However, the landlord didn’t place the deposit in an authorised scheme as it had been paid at the start of the original tenancy.
In 2012, the landlord served a possession notice. The tenant claimed the notice was invalid because the deposit had not been protected in a scheme. The court, however, ruled in favour of the landlord because the deposit had been paid before the regulations applied.
The Court of Appeal has now overturned that ruling. It held that the wording of the regulations was clearly targeted at cases where the deposit was not being held in an authorised scheme, regardless of when the deposit had originally been paid.
This should not have caused any problem for the landlord. He could have cleared the way to seek possession in two ways: he could have placed the deposit in an approved scheme or he could have repaid it to the tenant. He did neither so the possession notice was invalid.
Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of commercial property law.