DLA Piper faces fresh battle over disability discrimination claim
DLA Piper is to defend itself for a second time against a high-profile disability discrimination claim after a ruling this week from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In a judgment handed down yesterday (15 June), EAT president Mr Justice Underhill sent the claim to be heard again in an employment tribunal later this year.
June 16, 2010 at 09:31 AM
3 minute read
DLA Piper is to defend itself for a second time against a high-profile disability discrimination claim after a ruling this week from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
In a judgment handed down yesterday (15 June), EAT president Mr Justice Underhill sent the claim to be heard again in an employment tribunal later this year.
The claim relates a job offer for a professional support lawyer role that DLA Piper withdrew in 2008, which the claimant alleges was the result of an admission of previous mental health issues.
The unnamed claimant, known only as 'J', applied to the law firm in June 2008 and verbally accepted a job offer following two interviews. However, after disclosing a history of depression, the claimant says that the law firm withdrew the offer, citing a recruitment freeze.
Shortly afterwards a claim was filed at the employment tribunal in September 2008.
The case was initially struck out in March 2009 after the tribunal ruled that the claimant was not disabled under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. This was appealed, leading to a two-day hearing in February 2010 before the EAT, and has now been sent back for a second hearing at the employment tribunal.
The claimant is being represented by Russell Jones & Walker, with Matrix Chambers' James Laddie instructed as counsel.
DLA Piper was advised by Matthew Howse, who was a partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf while the case was being heard before the EAT, but has since moved to Morgan Lewis & Bockius, taking the case with him. Littleton Chambers' Daniel Tatton Brown was instructed as counsel.
Russell Jones employment solicitor Kiran Daurka, who advised the claimant, commented: "While my client is clearly pleased that she has won her appeal, she is now required to go to a third hearing at which her medical records will be re-examined by a tribunal panel."
She added: "The battle through the legal system that J has had to face so far highlights just how difficult it is for individuals with mental health conditions to bring disability discrimination claims.
"This case also highlights the very real difficulties faced, not just by my client, but for the many individuals who experience stigma upon revealing mental health conditions. Today's judgment is a missed opportunity for the EAT to tackle the difficulties met in mental health cases in a more meaningful way."
A spokesperson for DLA Piper commented: "We continue to maintain that the firm acted entirely appropriately in responding to a decline in market conditions and applying a 'recruitment freeze', which unfortunately caught the job application involving the claimant. We communicated that to the claimant prior to her acceptance of our offer of employment and prior to her deciding to resign from her, then current, position."
The firm added: "The judgment of the Appeal Tribunal has asked a new tribunal to reconsider the complex issues raised by the appeal in the first instance. It was open to the Appeal Tribunal to reverse the original decision, which it has declined to do."
"We will continue to maintain both the technical and substantive elements of our defence."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readDLA Piper, Heuking & Other Key Moves as German Legal Market Reshuffles Ahead of 2025
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250