Archibald v Fife Council
The duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee may require the employer to treat the employee more favourably than others, including transferring her to a higher graded post without competitive interview.
Facts
Mrs Archibald worked as a road sweeper for Fife Council. After complications during surgery, she became unable to walk, and could no longer do her job. She was retrained for office work and applied for over 100 sedentary jobs with the council, which were at a slightly higher grade, but under the council's policy she had to undergo competitive interviews, and she was not successful. She was eventually dismissed, and claimed that the council had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could require the council to transfer her to a higher graded post without a competitive interview. Lady Hale said that the duty to make adjustments necessarily entails a measure of positive discrimination, in the sense that the employer is required to treat the disabled person more favourably than others, to remove the disadvantage caused by the disability. The case was sent back to the tribunal to decide what adjustments it would have been reasonable for the council to make.
Related cases on discrimination at work
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48, [2001] 1 WLR 1947
- Coleman v Attridge Law Case C-303/06, [2008] ECR I-5603
- Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1
- Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] ICR 931
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
