Disability Discrimination Legal Analysis

Skeletal Argument
*. Introduction
- This skeletal argument addresses the claimant's assertion that the respondent lawyer subjected them to disability discrimination, and holds the respondent vicariously liable under Section * of the Equality Act *. The respondent seeks to use judicial proceedings immunity as a defence. The claimant contends that the act was retaliation for performing a protected act and filing a claim in court.
*. Relevant Law
- Equality Act *, Section *: Employers are vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
- Judicial Proceedings Immunity: This common law principle grants immunity to participants in judicial proceedings from civil liability for their conduct during those proceedings.
*. Claimant's Argument
- Vicarious Liability:
- The respondent lawyer, acting within the course of employment, subjected the claimant to disability discrimination.
- Case Law: *Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [*] UKHL ** establishes that an employer can be held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by an employee.
- Disability Discrimination:
- The claimant faced unfavorable treatment due to their disability.
- Case Law: *Patel v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd [*] UKEAT 0308_12_1503* highlights the employer's duty to prevent disability discrimination.
- Retaliation for Protected Act:
- The discriminatory act was in retaliation for the claimant performing a protected act by filing a claim.
- Case Law: *Cunningham v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [*] UKEAT 0625_10_2909* confirms that retaliation for protected acts constitutes discrimination.
*. Respondent's Defence
- Judicial Proceedings Immunity:
- The respondent may argue that the discriminatory acts occurred within the context of judicial proceedings and are therefore immune from civil liability.
- Case Law: *Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [*] EWCA Civ ** suggests that certain acts during judicial proceedings may be protected by immunity.
*. Rebuttal to Defence
- Limitation of Immunity:
- Judicial proceedings immunity does not extend to all acts of discrimination.
- Case Law: *Pillai v Messiter (No *) [*] * NSWLR ** indicates that where discrimination can be clearly identified and separated from the judicial process, immunity may not apply.
- Retaliation Context:
- The context of retaliation for a protected act should nullify the claim of immunity.
- Case Law: *Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [*] UKEAT 0086_11_0808* supports the view that retaliatory acts are scrutinized separately from judicial immunity.
*. Conclusion
- The claimant has established grounds for vicarious liability under Section * of the Equality Act *.
- The respondent's reliance on judicial proceedings immunity should be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is not used to shield discriminatory practices.
- The claimant seeks the court's judgment in holding the respondent vicariously liable for disability discrimination and dismissing the respondent's defence of judicial proceedings immunity.