EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability – The effect of an impairment may be direct or indirect. However, the majority of the Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the deduced effect of the Claimant’s impairment for the purpose of Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 Part 1 paragraph 5 was substantial and adverse to her ability to carry out day- to- day activities when the evidence established that the impairment, Selective IgA, caused an increase in susceptibility to infection but did not support a conclusion that increased rate of infection had such an effect. Further the evidence did not support the conclusion of the majority of the ET that substantial adverse effects caused by the impairment in the past were likely to recur.
Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary [2004] IRLR 540 considered.
Appeal allowed. Decision of the Employment Tribunal that the Claimant was a disabled person at the material time, October 2010, set aside. The issue of whether the Claimant was a disabled person at the material time, remitted for re-hearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
Judges:
Slade J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0031 – 12 – 3010
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary EAT 25-Nov-2003
The EAT upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that the claimant had not shown that her disability was likely to recur. However: ‘In considering whether during a particular period in the past, a substantial adverse effect was likely to recur . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465542