Disability discrimination: "Progressive conditions" provisions do not cover impairment as a result of treatment
This report relates to 1 case(s)
-
expand
Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd [2002] IRLR 840 EAT (1 other report)
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.
To continue reading, register for free access now.
Register now
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in
