| 
Tribunal should have focused on what employee couldn’t do, not what he could do, when deciding if he was disabled
Whether or not an employee meets the legal definition of a disabled person is a crucial starting point in any disability discrimination case. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
This test is often misunderstood or applied too narrowly. A recent case, Stedman v Haven Leisure, offers a useful reminder of the correct approach.
Mr Stedman had diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD. He applied for a job with Haven Leisure and, after being rejected, brought a claim for disability discrimination relating to how his application was handled. The employment tribunal ruled that his impairments did not meet the definition of disability. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed and found several key errors:
- A disability only needs to affect one day-to-day activity in a substantial way.
- The tribunal wrongly weighed up what Mr Stedman could do against what he couldn’t – this was not the correct test. The focus should have been on what he could not do.
- The comparison should be between Mr Stedman with the impairment and how he would be without it.
Notably, the EAT made an ‘obiter’ (non-binding) comment that a clinical diagnosis of ASD or ADHD can provide evidence of both the existence of an impairment and its functional impact. A clinical diagnosis of autism or ADHD means that the person has been judged by a clinician to have significant difficulties with certain areas of functioning. This usually indicates that their difficulties are more than minor.
When considering whether an individual is disabled under the Equality Act 2010, focus on what difficulties they experience in everyday life – not how well they appear to cope overall. And always remember, just one substantial impact is enough.