In brief

first_imgIn briefOn 1 Jun 2003 in Personnel Today This month’s Employers Law news in briefEmployer can be liable for acts of third party In the well-known “Bernard Manning case” – Burton v de Vere Hotels– the EAT ruled that employers could be liable for race and sex harassment bynon-employees if the employer failed to take steps to avoid the harassmentoccurring. In this case, the EAT ruled the same principle applies under theDDA. (Ree v Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Limited, EAT) Automatic dismissal of CEO was fair Cobley had been employed as chief executive for 25 years. His contract expresslyprovided that if he ceased to be a director of the company, his contract would terminate.Following a takeover which Cobley resisted, he was dismissed when the newshareholders appointed their own board. The Court of Appeal upheld the decisionof the tribunal and EAT that the dismissal was fair in the circumstances. Thereason for dismissal was ‘some other substantial reason’. Cobley was anexperienced businessman and would have known that he risked losing his job ifthe takeover succeeded. Cobley v Forward Technology Industries Plc, CA Disability and progressive conditions In this case, the applicant developed prostate cancer. Surgery left himincontinent. The Court of Appeal held that he was disabled for the purposes ofthe DDA, falling within the progressive medical conditions provisions ofSchedule 1, paragraph 8 of the Act. The incontinence was an adverse effect onnormal day-to-day activities. It arose from the medical condition, even thoughit had been caused by surgery rather than the condition itself. Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd, CA Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. last_img read more