R (W) v Birmingham CC  EWHC 1147 Admin (Walker J): the council’s decision to restrict eligibility for adult care services to critical needs only had been unlawful because (1) in breach of section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the material provided to decision makers contained no attempt to assess the likely adverse impact on those with “only” substantial needs and the likely effect of the council’s proposed mitigating steps, and neither did it draw attention to the duty to have due regard to the needs set out in section 49A when considering what decision to reach, (2) the consultation process failed to attempt to elicit information about the likely adverse impact of the proposed changes and failed to provide consultees with adequate information about the precise nature of the proposed change in eligible needs and about the financial savings envisaged. Click here for the transcript.
G (By his litigation Friend) v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College Governors  EWHC 1452 (Admin) The refusal by the school to allow an exception to its school uniform policy, so that a pupil could wear his hair in cornrows on the basis of a family tradition was held to be indirect race discrimination lacking in justification. Some persons of African-Caribbean consider for reasons of culture and ethnicity that cutting hair is wrong and wear their hair in cornrows. In being turned away from school for wearing cornrows, the claimant had suffered a particular disadvantage. Click here for transcript.