This is a preview. To continue reading, register for free access now. Register now or Log in

Disability discrimination: "Progressive conditions" provisions do not cover impairment as a result of treatment

This report relates to 1 case(s)

Key points

  • In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd [2002] IRLR 840 the EAT holds that an employee who suffered minor urinary incontinence as a result of surgery for prostate cancer was not thereby brought within the scope of the "progressive conditions" provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under those provisions, a person is treated as disabled if, as a result of such a condition, he or she has an impairment which has an effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, and which is expected to be a substantial adverse effect, even if the adverse effect is not fully manifested at the relevant time.