Stedman v Haven Leisure: Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies interpretation of disability under Equality Act 2010

Societal awareness and recognition of neurodivergence and other mental impairments is steadily increasing.

However, judging if a mental impairment amounts to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) is a complex legal issue, as evidenced by the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Stedman v Haven Leisure.

Background

In Stedman v Haven Leisure, Mr Stedman, who has been clinically diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), brought a claim for disability discrimination against Haven in relation to the handling of his unsuccessful job application. At a preliminary hearing, the judge ruled that Mr Stedman was not disabled as defined in the EA 2010, prompting him to appeal.

To be considered disabled under the EA 2010, an individual must have a physical or mental impairment which has a “substantial” and “long-term” adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities – generally meaning the effect of the impairment is more than minor or trivial and has lasted, or is likely to last, more than 12 months.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision

The EAT allowed the appeal and sent the case to a new tribunal to determine whether Mr Stedman is considered disabled under the EA 2010. The EAT found that, while the Employment Tribunal’s (ET) decision was not inherently unreasonable, it was perversely made based on the facts and reasons given.

Citing examples from the judgment, the EAT found it unreasonable for the ET to conclude that Mr Stedman had overstated his difficulties with concentrating. Similarly, the fact Mr Stedman is a sociable person and performs in public should not have been used to discount his difficulties with social communication. It is sufficient if the claimant’s condition has a substantial adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity, regardless of whether other activities seem to be unaffected.

While the EAT identified several errors in the reasoning of the ET, not all the grounds of appeal were upheld; the EAT determined that the original judgment was not entirely flawed. For instance, Mr Stedman relied upon evidence that his difficulties with memory required him to use lists when shopping, but the ET considered this behaviour common in that context and not necessarily linked to disability. The EAT concluded that if the ET had specifically compared Mr Stedman to a hypothetical version of himself without an impairment, rather than to non-disabled people generally, its reasoning would have been sufficient.

The EAT also clarified that clinical evidence of an impairment plays an important role in cases regarding disability. Both parties agreed that a diagnosis of autism or ADHD alone does not automatically mean someone is considered disabled under the EA 2010.

However, the EAT stated that a clinical diagnosis is not only relevant to the question of “physical or mental impairment”, but also to “substantial effect”. A diagnosis of autism or ADHD reflects a clinical judgement that someone is significantly different in regard to the area of functioning covered by that diagnosis, so tribunals should consider it evidence of both an impairment and the impact of this impairment on an individual’s daily life.

Impact for schools

It’s important for schools to understand that determining whether an individual’s mental impairment makes them disabled under the EA 2010 is a very complex and technical point of law.

To mitigate the risk of legal disputes, schools should be mindful of potential disability discrimination claims and ensure appropriate reasonable adjustments are made based on the individual’s diagnosis.

This is applicable not only to recruitment, but also more generally in relation to existing staff and pupils within the school.