Latest developments in 2019

• Author: Vickers, Lucy
• Pages: 71-74

71

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019

12.1 Legislative amendments

Amendments to the Equality Act 2010 are listed with the online version of the Act.191 There

has been no significant legislative amendment in 201 9 for the purpose of this report.

12.2 Case law

Disability

Name of the court: Supreme Court

Date of decision: 17.12.19

Name of the parties: National court decision, Williams v Truste es of Swansea University

Pension & Assurance Scheme & Anor

Reference number: [2018] UKSC 65

Address of the webpage: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/20 18/65.html

Brief summary: Mr Williams was employed by Swansea University for 13 yea rs until his

retirement on ill health grounds at the age of 38. He sat isfied the definition of ‘disability’

under the Equality Act 2010. He was a member of the university pension scheme

throughout his employment. He had worked full time for the first 10 years. He then moved

to part time for his final three years of work, due to his disabilities. Part of his pension was

provided on the basis of his final salary (for the years until 2009) and thereafter, until 2013

on career average earnin gs. As well as ad ditional entitlements under the provisions for ill

health early retirement for a lump sum and annuity (which were not in dispute) he was

also entitled to an enhancement calcul ated on the basis of his actu al salary at the date of

retirement and this enhanced element was under dispute in the case. Mr Williams claimed

that the basing of the enhancement on his actual (part-time) salary amounted to less

favourable treatment under the 2010 Equality Act because he was part-time as a

consequence of his disabilities. Williams’ argument was accepted by the Employment

Tribunal but rejected on appeal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of

Appeal. The decision was furth er appealed to the Su preme Court on the question of the

meaning of the expression ‘unfavourable treatment’ under the Equa lity Act 2010.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It h eld that s 15 EqA was not concerned with

comparisons, but instead with two questions of fact: what was the relevant treatment and

was it unfavourable to the claimant? The question to b e determined was whether the

treatment was unfavourable, and the Court held that it was not. In this case, the treatment

in question was the award of the pension. The reason for giving the relevant enhancement

of the pension was because of his disabilities. If he had been able t o wor k full time, he

would have had no right to the early and enhanced pension payment. Therefore, the award

could not be said to be unfavourable.

Name of the court: Court of Appeal

Date of decision: 26.06.19

Name of the parties: The Chief Constable of Norfolk v Co ffey

Reference number: [2019] EWCA Civ 1061

Address of the webpage: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ 2019/1061.html

Brief summary: Lisa Coffey, a police constable, applied for a transfer to work for a

different police force. At the time of her earlier employment, she underwent a medical

examination which indicated mild sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus. However, the

level of hearing loss did not affect he r ability to do th e job and she was employed having

passed a hearing functionality test. Her application for transfer to a new police force was

rejected, despite medical evidence that her hearing had not deteriorated and that she

would pass a practical functionality test. The reason for the rejection was that, although

191 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/resources.