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 impaired. ‘The tribunal should bear in mind that with social legislation of this kind, a purposive approach to construction should be adopted. The language should be construed in a way which gives effect to the stated or presumed intention of Parliament, but with due regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in question. ‘ and ‘the tribunal must consider whether the adverse effect is substantial. This is a word which is potentially ambiguous. ‘Substantial’ might mean ‘very large’ or it might mean ‘more than minor or trivial’. Reference to the Guide shows that the word has been used in the latter sense’ and ‘The Tribunal will wish to examine how the applicant’s abilities had actually been effected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds to 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 applicant’s abilities to carry out normal day to day activities is clearly more than trivial.’
Judges:
Morison P
Citations:
Times 03-Feb-1999, [1999] IRLR 4, [1999] ICR 302
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd EAT 28-Aug-2001
Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological . .
See also – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
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 . .
Cited – 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
Cited – Murphy v Sheffield Hallam University EAT 11-Jan-2000
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – A McKenzie v East Sussex County Council EAT 13-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
The parties sought to settle the appeal by consent. The Tribunal was obliged to consider the merits before making an order. In this case the order requested was . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Cited – Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Oct-2000
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.80924