Mr Jones was a Royal Mail driver. He became diabetic and insulin dependent and was removed from driving duties. The Post had done their own medical appraisal, which turned out to be wrong. He alleged that his dismissal was unfair.
Judgmentedit
The Court of Appeal, in a controversial decision, held it was not. Pill LJ said "Where a properly conducted risk assessment provides a reason which is on its face both material and substantial, and is not irrational, the tribunal cannot substitute its own appraisal."
Arden LJ said "the word substantial [s.5(3)] does not mean that the employer must necessarily have reached the best conclusion that could be reached in the light of all known medical science. Employers are not obliged to search for the Holy Grail."
Subsequent developmentsedit
This case has been subject to considerable academic criticism, for introducing (without any apparent statutory authority) a "reasonable range of responses" test. A number of cases after have limited and tacitly undermined its effect.
jones, post, office, 2001, irlr, labour, case, under, disability, discrimination, 1995, courtcourt, appeal, england, walesdecided11, april, 2001citation, 2001, ewca, 2001, irlr, 384court, membershipjudge, sittingkay, arden, pill, ljkeywordsemployment, discrimi. Jones v Post Office 2001 IRLR 384 is a UK labour law case under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jones v Post OfficeCourtCourt of Appeal of England and WalesDecided11 April 2001Citation s 2001 EWCA Civ 558 2001 IRLR 384Court membershipJudge s sittingKay LJ Arden LJ Pill LJKeywordsEmployment Discrimination Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Subsequent developments 4 See also 5 NotesFacts editMr Jones was a Royal Mail driver He became diabetic and insulin dependent and was removed from driving duties The Post had done their own medical appraisal which turned out to be wrong He alleged that his dismissal was unfair Judgment editThe Court of Appeal in a controversial decision held it was not Pill LJ said Where a properly conducted risk assessment provides a reason which is on its face both material and substantial and is not irrational the tribunal cannot substitute its own appraisal Arden LJ said the word substantial s 5 3 does not mean that the employer must necessarily have reached the best conclusion that could be reached in the light of all known medical science Employers are not obliged to search for the Holy Grail Subsequent developments editThis case has been subject to considerable academic criticism for introducing without any apparent statutory authority a reasonable range of responses test A number of cases after have limited and tacitly undermined its effect Paul v National Probation Service 2004 IRLR 190 Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Ltd 2004 IRLR 395See also editUK employment discrimination law UK labour law Human Rights Act 1998Notes edit Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Jones v Post Office amp oldid 1148809330, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
