Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases and statutory provisions to elucidate the correct approach to determining disability under the DDA 1995.

• Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302: Emphasized focusing on the claimant's difficulties rather than their abilities.
• Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] ICR 475: Highlighted that vague symptoms such as stress or anxiety may be insufficient to establish disability.
• City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson (UKEATS/0038/09): Discussed the relationship between impairment and substantial adverse effects.
• London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] IRLR 700: Addressed the diminished distinction between impairment and adverse effects post-legislation amendments.
• Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557: Influenced the interpretation of statutory definitions in anti-discrimination law.
• Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] ICR 1056: Referenced concerning the construction of statutory terms related to impairment.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's legal reasoning centered on a two-pronged analysis: firstly, determining whether the claimant was suffering from a disability as defined by the DDA 1995, and secondly, whether the Respondents acted upon a perceived disability, which could constitute additional grounds for discrimination under EU law.

A critical aspect of the reasoning involved distinguishing between actual impairment (clinical depression) and a reactive state (despondency due to adverse appraisal). The Tribunal initially failed to adequately consider the General Practitioner (GP) evidence supporting the presence of clinical depression at the time of the discrimination allegation. This oversight led to the erroneous dismissal of the claimant's disability status.

The Appeal Tribunal emphasized the importance of a systematic approach in evaluating impairment and adverse effects, adhering closely to the statutory definitions and prior jurisprudence. It underscored that impairment should not be conflated with adverse effects and that each must be assessed based on the evidence regarding their nature, severity, and duration.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for Employment Tribunals to meticulously assess both the existence of an impairment and its substantial adverse effects as separate, yet related, considerations under the DDA 1995. It underscores the significance of giving due weight to medical evidence, including that from GPs, when determining disability status.

Additionally, the case illuminates the complexities involved in perceived disability claims, especially concerning mental health conditions. While the Appeal Tribunal did not resolve this aspect, it highlighted the challenges in applying EU anti-discrimination principles to perceived disabilities within domestic law.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment to ensure comprehensive and systematic evaluations of disability claims, particularly those involving mental health impairments.

Impairment and Adverse Effects

Under the DDA 1995, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that significantly affects their ability to perform normal daily activities over a long period (at least 12 months). This involves two key assessments:

• Impairment: Refers to the actual condition, such as clinical depression.
• Adverse Effects: The negative impact of the impairment on the person's daily activities, such as concentration or social interactions.

The Act requires that these two elements be evaluated separately but within a connected framework to determine disability status accurately.

Perceived Disability

Perceived disability occurs when an employer believes an employee has a disability, regardless of its actual existence. Discrimination based on perceived disability can still be unlawful as it impacts the employee's treatment within the workplace.

This case highlighted the complexities in addressing perceived disabilities, particularly when they involve mental health conditions that may be subjectively interpreted by employers.