EAT Disability Discrimination : Disability – The Claimant had been employed at the First Respondent’s stores, most recently as an assistant manager. She suffered from stress, anxiety and depression, for which she was prescribed drugs and received counselling. At a Pre-Hearing Review the Employment Tribunal had to determine the issue whether she had a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Judge (sitting alone) found that, although the Claimant did have a disability, and that it was substantial, it was not long-term, because the substantial effects on her normal day to day activities had not lasted for more than 12 months. The Claimant appeared on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had failed to address the question whether her disability was being controlled by drugs (the ‘deduced effects’ point) and whether its effects were likely to recur even if they had ceased to occur (the ‘likelihood of recurrence’ point).
Held, the Employment Tribunal had erred because it had not addressed the deduced effects point and the likelihood of recurrence point. However, what answer would have been given to those points was not clear and it was not possible to determine those questions as a matter of fact. Accordingly, the case would have to be remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for redetermination in accordance with the judgment of the appeal tribunal.
Singh J
[2014] UKEAT 0424 – 13 – 2006
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536283
