News Alerts

Defining disability

David Reid
2nd Nov 2012

The Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that in certain circumstances, it is not sufficient that the person has a life-long condition that makes him or her more prone to infections and which is controlled by medication.

 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has determined that in certain circumstances, when establishing whether a person has a disability under the Equality Act 2010, it is not sufficient that the person has a life-long condition that makes him or her more prone to infections and which is controlled by medication. In order to fall within the definition of a disabled person the person must also provide adequate evidence that the increased infections would themselves have a substantial adverse effect on that person.

 

In this case, the employee suffered from a condition called Selective IgA which caused an increase in susceptibility to infection. In the past, these infections had had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. However, the EAT found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that further infections would have the same result. The issue as to whether the employee was disabled was therefore remitted back to the Employment Tribunal to determine.

 

(Case name: Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris UKEAT/0031/12/SM)

 

The full case can be found here.

Share this with