| 词条 | Jones v Post Office |
| 释义 |
| name = Jones v Post Office | court = Court of Appeal of England and Wales | image = | caption = | date decided = 11 April 2001 | full name = | citations = [2001] EWCA Civ 558, [2001] IRLR 384 | judges = Kay LJ, Arden LJ, Pill LJ | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Employment, Discrimination }} Jones v Post Office [2001] IRLR 384 is a UK labour law case, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. FactsMr 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. JudgmentThe 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 developmentsThis 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.
See also
Notes 5 : United Kingdom labour case law|United Kingdom equality case law|Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases|2001 in case law|2001 in British law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。