Introduction

Greenwood v. British Airways Plc ([1999] IRLR 600) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal on June 17, 1999. The appellant, Mr. Greenwood, challenged the decision of the London (South) Employment Tribunal, which had dismissed his claim of unlawful disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). This case is instrumental in elucidating the interpretation of disability within the context of employment law, particularly distinguishing between Section 1 and Section 2 disabilities.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Greenwood, employed by British Airways PLC, suffered from depression and related mental health issues, leading to periods of sick leave between 1993 and 1998. In 1997, after applying for a promotion, he was denied the position with the rationale that he was perceived as unreliable due to his previous sickness. Greenwood alleged that this constituted discrimination based on disability.

The Employment Tribunal initially found that Greenwood did not qualify as a disabled person under Section 1 of the DDA 1995 at the time of the alleged discrimination. However, upon appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) scrutinized the tribunal's methodology in assessing whether Greenwood had a disability.

The EAT concluded that the tribunal erred by only considering Greenwood's condition at the time of the alleged discriminatory act (June 1997) and disregarding the recurrence and worsening of his condition thereafter. Consequently, the EAT allowed the appeal, recognizing Greenwood as a person who had had a disability under Section 2 of the Act and remitting the case for further consideration on whether discrimination occurred.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4, a seminal case decided by the EAT prior to Greenwood's appeal. In Goodwin, the EAT emphasized the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence presented in the initial forms (IT1 and IT3) when determining disability. This precedent underlined the necessity for tribunals to consider the broader context of an individual's condition over time, rather than a snapshot at a single point.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on the correct interpretation of the DDA 1995's provisions regarding disability. The Act distinguishes between:

• Section 1 Disability: Pertains to individuals currently suffering from a disability that adversely affects their day-to-day activities.
• Section 2 Disability: Relates to individuals who have had a disability in the past, subject to specific conditions.

The tribunal initially assessed Greenwood's condition solely based on June 1997, deeming his depression no longer substantial or likely to recur. The EAT highlighted that this approach neglected the entire duration of Greenwood's condition, including periods post-June 1997 where his symptoms had recurred and intensified. The Guidance under the Act mandates considering the total period of impairment, encompassing both before and after the discriminatory act.

By failing to account for the recurrence and worsening of Greenwood's condition after June 1997, the tribunal incorrectly assessed the substantiality and longevity of the adverse effects, leading to an erroneous conclusion regarding his disability status under Section 1. However, the EAT recognized that Greenwood met the criteria for a Section 2 disability, warranting a remittal for further examination.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future disability discrimination cases. It underscores the necessity for tribunals to adopt a holistic view of an individual's medical history, particularly when assessing disabilities that may fluctuate over time. The distinction between Section 1 and Section 2 disabilities is clarified, ensuring that individuals who may not currently exhibit substantial impairments but have a history thereof are still protected under the DDA 1995.

Furthermore, the case emphasizes adherence to statutory guidance, mandating that tribunals evaluate the likelihood of an impairment's persistence by considering the entire timeline of the condition. This ensures a fair and comprehensive assessment of disability claims, preventing premature dismissals based on transient or improving conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 1 vs. Section 2 Disability: - Section 1 focuses on individuals currently experiencing a disability that affects their daily activities. - Section 2 pertains to those who have had a disability in the past, provided certain conditions are met.

Substantial Adverse Effect: This term refers to an impairment's significant impact on one's ability to perform normal day-to-day tasks. It is more than "minor" or "trivial" and requires the impairment to affect areas such as memory, concentration, learning, or understanding.

Guidance Paragraphs: The DDA 1995 includes detailed guidance to aid in interpreting terms like "substantial adverse effect." These guidelines help tribunals and employers consistently assess disability claims.

Remittal: This legal term refers to sending a case back to a lower court or tribunal for further action. In this case, the EAT remitted the matter to re-evaluate Greenwood's claim with the correct consideration of his disability status.

Conclusion

The Greenwood v. British Airways Plc judgment is a cornerstone in disability discrimination law within the UK. It reinforces the importance of a comprehensive assessment of an individual's medical condition over time, ensuring that both current and past disabilities are duly recognized and protected under the DDA 1995. By distinguishing between Section 1 and Section 2 disabilities and emphasizing adherence to statutory guidance, the EAT has fortified the framework for fairer and more accurate disability discrimination evaluations. This case serves as a critical reference point for employers, legal practitioners, and tribunals in navigating the complexities of disability discrimination claims.