This week's case roundup, covering disability discrimination and a pregnancy related dismissal.
In Blackledge v London General Transport Services Ltd, the EAT holds that the failure of the employment tribunal to recognise the differences between two sets of diagnostic criteria used to identify post-traumatic stress disorder rendered its decision fatally flawed.
In Rugamer v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd and McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance (27 July 2001), the EAT has held that functional or psychological "overlay" is not a physical impairment within the meaning of the definition of disability.
On the basis of the evidence led before an employment tribunal, and the tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility, its decision that she had a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was plainly right, holds the Inner House, Court of Session in Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush.
An employee's clinical depression had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and was therefore a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce.
In Abadeh v British Telecommunications plc the EAT holds that, for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act, the question of what constitutes a "normal day-to-day activity" must be addressed without regard to whether or not the activity is normal to the particular applicant.
An employee diagnosed as suffering from reactive depression was a "disabled person" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth.
In Greenwood v British Airways plc, the EAT holds that, in considering whether an employee who suffered from depression was a "disabled person" within the meaning of s.1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal was wrong to focus solely on his medical condition as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act.
An employee who suffered from schizophrenia, and as a result experienced difficulties in concentrating and communicating, was a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act, holds the EAT in Goodwin v The Patent Office.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination legislation.