EAT The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim under the 1995 Act. He was a telephone operator injured after a sudden shriek in his ear. They had found him not to be disabled within the 1995 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had carefully considered medical evidence provided by the defendant before deciding themselves on the condition. They had not delegated their decision to her, but had been overly influenced by the doctor’s opinion as to whether or not the impairments were substantial under the Act and in effect adopted her assessment instead of making their own of that issue. The tribunal had incorrectly discounted the medical treatment received by the claimant. The tribunal had also erred in finding that travelling on the underground and by airplane were not normal day to day activities.
The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson
EAT/1124/99,  IRLR 23,  Emp LR 440,  ICR 156,  UKEAT 1124 – 99 – 1910
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1(1)
Cited – Hollister v National Farmers Union (NFU) CA 1979
The correct approach for the Industrial Tribunal looking at a company re-organisation is to make a finding as to the advantages to the employers of a proposed re-organisation and whether it was reasonable for them to implement it by terminating . .
Cited – Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Feb-1998
A medical report in a disability discrimination claim should deal with the doctor’s diagnosis of the impairments, the doctor’s observation of the applicant carrying out day to day activities and the ease with which he was able to perform those . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.255043