Disability; definition; established the four questions: impairment, adverse effect, substantial, long-term.
Disability; definition; the ability to do things with difficulty does not mean the person is not disabled.
Discrimination; disability; 'day-to-day activities' means activities relevant to participation in professional life.
Disability; definition; detailed the assessment of 'day-to-day activities'.
Disability; impairment; it is for the tribunal to decide if an impairment exists, based on the evidence.
Disability; definition; the time to assess disability is the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
Disability; mental impairment; where a mental impairment is alleged, the tribunal will usually need proper medical evidence and recognised medical opinion rather than bare descriptions of stress or low mood.
Disability; definition; 'long-term' means likely to last 12 months.
UKEAT 0915_04_1306 - Unfair dismissal; procedure; failure to offer an appeal makes a dismissal unfair.
Disability; EU definition; disability is a limitation which hinders full and effective participation in professional life.
Disability; substantial adverse effect; comparison; normal day-to-day activities. A dyslexic police officer seeking adjustments for promotion examinations was held not disabled by a tribunal that measured him against the ordinary average of the population. Allowing his appeal, the EAT (Elias P) held that the comparison is not with the average person: it is between what the claimant can do and what he could do without the impairment. The effect must fall outside the normal range across a cross-section of the population, but it is assessed on the individual, not against the population at large. The EAT also held, in the light of Chacón Navas, that normal day-to-day activities include activities relevant to professional life, so that sitting high-pressure promotion examinations qualified although irregular.
Disability; impairment is a functional concept directed to what the claimant cannot do in practice; the focus is on effect rather than cause, and overlapping physical and mental effects may be considered together.
Disability; long-term effect; whether an impairment was likely to recur or last 12 months must be determined by reference to the evidence available at the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
Disability; definition; 'likely' to recur means 'could well happen', a lower threshold than 'more probable than not'.
Disability; normal day-to-day activities; the 'activities' are those of a normal person, not the specialized duties of a police officer.
Disability; defines 'clinical depression' vs 'adverse life reaction'; symptoms characteristic of depression lasting 12+ months usually qualify as a disability.
Disability; 'substantial' adverse effect means an effect that is 'more than minor or trivial'.
Knowledge of disability; knowledge is not automatically imputed to decision-makers; the focus must be on the mental process of the person making the decision.
Disability; stress; long-term stress reactions to adverse life events may not amount to a mental impairment if they are just an 'entrenched reaction'.
Disability; bereavement and grief may involve symptoms that do not amount to an impairment, but may in some cases develop into something more profound; the question remains one of effect and evidence at the material time.
Disability; long-term effect; whether an impairment was likely to last 12 months must be assessed at the date of the alleged discriminatory act, not with hindsight.
Disability; a tribunal must focus on what the claimant cannot do or can do only with difficulty, not weigh that against what they can do; one substantially affected day-to-day activity is enough, and diagnoses such as ASD or ADHD are relevant to substantial adverse effect.
Unfair dismissal; Polkey; disability; endometriosis. The EAT (HHJ Tayler) allowed the claimant's appeal. On Polkey, the reduction is assessed on what the employer would or might have done had it had the opportunity to remedy the defect that made the dismissal unfair. The onus is on the respondent: the tribunal erred by asking what it would have done itself rather than requiring the respondent to prove what it would have done [79]-[83]. On disability, the reasoning was wholly inadequate to show the tribunal had analysed the evidence. Having formed an adverse view of the claimant's credibility it ignored her impact statement, recited an unattributed generalisation about endometriosis, and failed to engage with the occupational health and consultant evidence or with whether recovery from surgery was itself an adverse effect [100]-[104]. The s.15 finding fell with it [113]-[114]. Remitted to a fresh tribunal [115].