View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Jones v. Post Office.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Jones v. Post Office.
Authors: Epstein, David G.1 davide@nyfoundling.org
Source: Public Personnel Management. Summer2004, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p225-233. 9p.
Subject Terms: Legal judgments, Anti-discrimination laws, Actions & defenses (Law), Appellate courts
Company/Entity: Great Britain. Court of Appeal
Abstract: Does the United Kingdom Court of Appeal's judgment in Jones v Post Office [2001] EWCA Civ 558, [2001] I.C.R. 805, [2001] I.R.L.R. 384 represent a watering down of the defense of justification under the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 (DDA)? Under Section 5 of the DDA, an employer discriminates if it treats a disabled worker less favorably than an able-bodied one. The employer discriminates if it cannot show justification or does not comply with Section 6 duties to make "reasonable adjustments" without showing justification. This paper will examine Jones v. Post Office and whether the Court of Appears decision represents a watering down of the justification defense and a shift in favor of employer rights in the United Kingdom with respect to the DDA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 13266877
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Jones v. Post Office.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Epstein%2C+David+G%2E%22">Epstein, David G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> davide@nyfoundling.org</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Public+Personnel+Management%22">Public Personnel Management</searchLink>. Summer2004, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p225-233. 9p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Legal+judgments%22">Legal judgments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anti-discrimination+laws%22">Anti-discrimination laws</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Actions+%26+defenses+%28Law%29%22">Actions & defenses (Law)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Appellate+courts%22">Appellate courts</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectCompany
  Label: Company/Entity
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Great+Britain%2E+Court+of+Appeal%22">Great Britain. Court of Appeal</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Does the United Kingdom Court of Appeal's judgment in Jones v Post Office [2001] EWCA Civ 558, [2001] I.C.R. 805, [2001] I.R.L.R. 384 represent a watering down of the defense of justification under the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 (DDA)? Under Section 5 of the DDA, an employer discriminates if it treats a disabled worker less favorably than an able-bodied one. The employer discriminates if it cannot show justification or does not comply with Section 6 duties to make "reasonable adjustments" without showing justification. This paper will examine Jones v. Post Office and whether the Court of Appears decision represents a watering down of the justification defense and a shift in favor of employer rights in the United Kingdom with respect to the DDA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=13266877
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/009102600403300206
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 225
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Legal judgments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anti-discrimination laws
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Actions & defenses (Law)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Appellate courts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Great Britain. Court of Appeal
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Jones v. Post Office.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Epstein, David G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Text: Summer2004
              Type: published
              Y: 2004
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00910260
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Public Personnel Management
              Type: main
ResultId 1