An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of guidance resolves this ambiguity in favour of the latter alternative. The employment tribunal would: ‘wish to examine how the applicants abilities had actually been affected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicants ability to carry out normal day to day activities [are] clearly the more than trivial.’
The tribunal should consider four conditions: ‘(1) The impairment condition. Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?
(2) The adverse effect condition. Does the impairment affect the applicant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in one of the respects set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, and does it have an adverse effect?
(3) The substantial condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) substantial?
(4) The long-term condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) long-term?’ He continued: ‘Frequently, there will be a complete overlap between conditions (3) and (4) but it will be as well to bear all four of them in mind. Tribunals may find it helpful to address each of the questions but at the same time be aware of the risk that disaggregation should not take one’s eye off the whole picture.’
Judges:
Morison J
Citations:
Times 11-Nov-1998, [1998] UKEAT 57 – 98 – 2110, [1999] ICR 302, [1999] IRLR 4
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Citing:
See also – 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 . .
Cited by:
See also – 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 . .
Cited – Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth EAT 30-Jan-2001
EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was . .
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Cited – East Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
Cited – Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80923