In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that a claimant diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.
This week's case roundup, covering the appropriate bargaining unit for statutory recognition and whether anxiety constitutes a mental impairment for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Case throws up anomaly in some progressive conditions which will not be covered by Government's redefinition of disability.
In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey (10 December 2001), the EAT holds that an applicant who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not a disabled person within the meaning of the statutory definition because he had not established that the condition was likely to have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In Morgan v Staffordshire University the EAT holds that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that an employee did not have a mental impairment within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Complainants should back up mental impairment claims with medical evidence which employers must have chance to refute.
In Morgan v Staffordshire University (11 December 2001), the EAT has given practical guidance on what an applicant has to do in order to establish a mental impairment within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.
In Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd (25 October 2001), the EAT rules that where the effects of an impairment on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities are exacerbated by conditions at work, a tribunal should consider whether the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the employee's ability to perform normal day-to-day activities both while actually at work and while not at work.
In College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal was correct in its conclusion that the applicant suffered from a physical impairment, and that it was not necessary for them to know precisely what underlying disease or trauma had caused the impairment.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination legislation.