EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
Langstaff QC R said: ‘The question whether the impact of the impairment is upon normal day-to-day activities is, of course, judged by asking whether or not any of the abilities, capacities, or capabilities (whichever expression is adopted) referred to in Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act has been affected. If it is, then it must be almost inevitable that there will be some adverse effect upon normal day-to-day activities. An impairment of manual dexterity – to take that as an example – is almost bound to affect a myriad of individual activities, not all of which could satisfactorily be listed even by the most able and eloquent of applicants. Assuming for the moment, without deciding (because the contrary interpretation is not necessary for the resolution of this case), that an impairment in any of the capacities listed at Paragraph 4(1) is not in itself determinative of the question of impact on normal day-to-day activities, but that the impairment must be shown to have some such effect, it nonetheless seems to us that it will only be in the most exceptional case that any such impairment will not do so. If there were some impairment that affected the concert pianist only in his ability to manipulate the keys of his piano, it would affect his manual dexterity but would not affect normal day-to-day activities within the meaning of the Act: but it is difficult to contemplate what the nature of an impairment might be that had such a selective effect. In most normal cases it is likely that the answer to the question ‘Has a Paragraph 4(1) ability been affected?’ will also answer the question whether there has been an impact on normal day-to-day activities.’
Judges:
Mr Recorder Langstaff QC
Citations:
EAT/1044/00, [2001] UKEAT 1044 – 00 – 2505, [2001] ICR 1084
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 13-Nov-2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 23-Jul-2007
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
A police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.168244