In the case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has given important directions in relation to a disability having an adverse effect on an employee. The ruling by the Employment Tribunal in this case was the employee was not disabled.
The employee had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. He sued the employer for disability discrimination. There was a preliminary hearing by the Employment Tribunal. It was decided that the employees’ conditions did not meet the definition of being disabled under the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The employee appealed the decision.
Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld the appeal. It gave guidance on Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant must have a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity. The Employment Tribunal must not consider what a Claimant cannot do against what they can do, with reference to a single activity or general day-to-day activities. The comparison must be between the Claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment.
The Employment Tribunal had made a number of mistakes in following these standards. The Employment Tribunal can rule that an employee is not disabled. But on this occasion, it incorrectly ruled the employee was not disabled.
A person with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder must be diagnosed with a clinician’s opinion as to the actual extent the persons condition affects their function from the norm. Employers and HR practitioners should therefore carefully consult with an occupational health service before making any decisions.
If you need any further advice and help, please do not hesitate to contact the Quest HR Advice Line on 01455 852028.
