This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/8635900.stm
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Discrimination case makes history | Discrimination case makes history |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| A woman from Warrenpoint has made history in a landmark discrimination case which clarifies the UK's Disability Law. | |
| Elizabeth Boyle, who suffers from vocal nodules agreed the sum of £125,000 from her former employer, SCA Packaging Ltd. | Elizabeth Boyle, who suffers from vocal nodules agreed the sum of £125,000 from her former employer, SCA Packaging Ltd. |
| Ms Boyle brought the case after the company changed her working environment which would have threatened her voice. | Ms Boyle brought the case after the company changed her working environment which would have threatened her voice. |
| The settlement was made without admission of liability by SCA Packaging Ltd, in respect of the claims. | The settlement was made without admission of liability by SCA Packaging Ltd, in respect of the claims. |
| Ms. Boyle alleged discrimination on grounds of disability, sex, victimisation and unfair selection for redundancy. | Ms. Boyle alleged discrimination on grounds of disability, sex, victimisation and unfair selection for redundancy. |
| Speaking after the settlement, Ms Boyle said: "This has been a nine year battle that caused so much stress to me and my family. | Speaking after the settlement, Ms Boyle said: "This has been a nine year battle that caused so much stress to me and my family. |
| "However, because of the ruling made in my case, other disabled people can benefit too." | "However, because of the ruling made in my case, other disabled people can benefit too." |
| The case was reviewed under the Disability Discrimination Act and was the subject of a House of Lords ruling. | The case was reviewed under the Disability Discrimination Act and was the subject of a House of Lords ruling. |
| The case has clarified the law, increasing protection from discrimination to people with a range of health conditions where symptoms can be managed or may fluctuate. This could include conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. | The case has clarified the law, increasing protection from discrimination to people with a range of health conditions where symptoms can be managed or may fluctuate. This could include conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. |
| Ms Boyle was employed by SCA Packaging Limited as a stock controller at their Warrenpoint factory, and had had difficulties with her vocal chords from 1974. | Ms Boyle was employed by SCA Packaging Limited as a stock controller at their Warrenpoint factory, and had had difficulties with her vocal chords from 1974. |
| Her condition required surgery, speech therapy and a strict management regime to ensure the problems did not recur. | Her condition required surgery, speech therapy and a strict management regime to ensure the problems did not recur. |
| This involved limiting the use of her voice, staggering telephone calls, avoiding smoky, dry or dusty atmospheres, speaking quietly, reducing background noise, and maintaining high hydration levels. | This involved limiting the use of her voice, staggering telephone calls, avoiding smoky, dry or dusty atmospheres, speaking quietly, reducing background noise, and maintaining high hydration levels. |
| At a time when Ms. Boyle was following her health management regime rigorously and was symptom free, her employer sought to remove a partition separating her office from a stock control room. | At a time when Ms. Boyle was following her health management regime rigorously and was symptom free, her employer sought to remove a partition separating her office from a stock control room. |
| "I had worked hard to minimise the symptoms of my condition," Ms Boyle said. | "I had worked hard to minimise the symptoms of my condition," Ms Boyle said. |
| "So I was very upset when changes were proposed by management to my working arrangements which I felt might undermine the very strenuous efforts I had made to protect my voice and safeguard my health." | "So I was very upset when changes were proposed by management to my working arrangements which I felt might undermine the very strenuous efforts I had made to protect my voice and safeguard my health." |
| Ms Boyle believed that the increased noise levels would have a substantial adverse effect on her health and in October 2001 she began proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act alleging discrimination on grounds of her employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. | Ms Boyle believed that the increased noise levels would have a substantial adverse effect on her health and in October 2001 she began proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act alleging discrimination on grounds of her employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. |
| In May 2002, after 33 years service, she was made redundant and, arising from this decision, she subsequently brought further proceedings alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act, including victimisation, and of the Sex Discrimination Order. | In May 2002, after 33 years service, she was made redundant and, arising from this decision, she subsequently brought further proceedings alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act, including victimisation, and of the Sex Discrimination Order. |
| Ms Boyle also claimed she was unfairly dismissed. | Ms Boyle also claimed she was unfairly dismissed. |
| Eileen Lavery, Head of Strategic Enforcement in the Equality Commission, said the case has broadened the protection afforded to people under the Disability Discrimination Act. | Eileen Lavery, Head of Strategic Enforcement in the Equality Commission, said the case has broadened the protection afforded to people under the Disability Discrimination Act. |
| "This is the conclusion of a case in which the Court of Appeal made a significant ruling, subsequently upheld by the House of Lords, which changed the previously accepted interpretation of the word 'likely' when used in the Disability Discrimination Act." | "This is the conclusion of a case in which the Court of Appeal made a significant ruling, subsequently upheld by the House of Lords, which changed the previously accepted interpretation of the word 'likely' when used in the Disability Discrimination Act." |
| Under the previous interpretation, an employer could possibly decide to take no steps to accommodate special measures being followed by the employee, unless the risk of recurrence of her condition could be shown to be more probable than not. | Under the previous interpretation, an employer could possibly decide to take no steps to accommodate special measures being followed by the employee, unless the risk of recurrence of her condition could be shown to be more probable than not. |
| This ruling means that it is sufficient to establish that if a persons treatment regime is disrupted, disabling effects could well recur. | This ruling means that it is sufficient to establish that if a persons treatment regime is disrupted, disabling effects could well recur. |
| This would then carry with it a requirement of reasonable adjustment on the part of the employer | This would then carry with it a requirement of reasonable adjustment on the part of the employer |