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Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time (June 2008) Claimant not suffering from ‘clinical depression’ amounting to a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Appeal allowed, and issue remitted, because Tribunal
(a) had wrongly declined to give weight to the evidence of Claimant’s GP, on the issues both of impairment and of ‘deduced effect’, because she was not a specialist; and
(b) had made a perverse finding as to whether the Claimant’s past depression had amounted to an impairment having a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, which was material both to the question of whether she had an impairment in June 2008 and to the potential application of para. 2 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Act
(1) correct approach to issue of ‘impairment’ in cases involving a mental disability following the repeal of para. 1 (1) of Schedule 1 by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 – Morgan v Staffordshire University  ICR 475 considered; College of Ripon and York St. John v Hobbs  IRLR 185 and McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd  ICR 1498 held to remain good law – (paras. 35-40 and 43-44)
(2) distinction between ‘clinical depression’ and reactions to stress or other adverse circumstances producing similar symptoms (para. 42)
(3) whether claimant with a history of recurrent depressive episodes can be said to suffer an impairment in the intervals between episodes (para. 45).
Claimant refused permission to advance a point not raised before the Tribunal to the effect that even if she was not in fact disabled at the time of the acts complained of the Respondents perceived her to have been; that discrimination on the basis of such ‘perceived disability’ was contrary to EU law; and that the 1995 Act could be construed so as to give effect to that prohibition, by analogy with EBR Attridge LLP v Coleman  ICR 242 – paras. 60-64.
Underhill P J
 UKEAT 0263 – 09 – 1506
Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996
England and Wales
Cited – College of Ripon and York St John v Dr Hobbs EAT 14-Nov-2001
The college appealed a finding that the applicant who had been found to be disabled within the Act, but denied discrimination. They appealed the finding of the tribunal which had failed to identify whether the disability was mental or physical.
Cited – Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark EAT 4-Feb-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited – McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Limited CA 26-Jul-2002
The Disability Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in a claim between the parties for disability discrimination.
Held: The Commission has important duties, but that did not give it the right, save in exceptional circumstances, to . .
Cited – Morgan v Staffordshire University EAT 11-Dec-2001
The EAT gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases where a mental impairment is alleged by a complainant. After referring to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act: ‘Accordingly, in general there will be three or possibly four routes to . .
Cited – EBR Attridge Law Llp and Another v Coleman EAT 30-Oct-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – ‘Associative’ discrimination
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 can be interpreted so as to apply to ‘associative’ discrimination as required by the decision of the . .
Cited – 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 – City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson EAT 2-Dec-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reinstatement/re-engagement
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability-related discrimination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Cited – D Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark CA 2003
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘As will readily be seen, it provides (perhaps rather surprisingly) that someone is to be treated as disabled even though they are not in fact disabled (even, that is, where they suffer no substantial adverse effect on their . .
Cited – Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School CA 2-Apr-1998
The Employment Appeal Tribunal must give reasons for its decision, if it chooses to allow the amendment of appeal the papers in order to hear a point of law which had been conceded in the industrial tribunal. Citing Liverpool Corporation v Wilson, . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.416806