Disability Discrimination: A Reminder of the Basics

28 Apr 2021

Although it is more than 25 years since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act, a number of fundamental points continue to be the subject of argument and litigation.  In this Employer’s Question, Rustom Tata looks at the recent decision in Elliott v Dorset County Council.

Q: What was the case about?

The Claimant, Mr Elliott, was a Geographical Information Systems Manager and had worked for the Council between 1984 and 2018.  He argued that he was disabled at the time when he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of how he recorded his working hours.  At a Preliminary Hearing the Employment Tribunal sought to decide whether or not Mr Elliott was disabled.

Q: What does an individual have to show in order to be considered disabled under the legislation?

Unless the individual has one of the conditions which means they are deemed to be ‘disabled’ at the point of diagnosis, they must satisfy the Tribunal that they have a physical or mental impairment, and that this impairment has a substantial and long term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.  

Q: But isn’t this quite a well established legal test?

The statutory wording is well settled, but what this case focussed on was the issue of what is ‘substantial’, and how that is to be assessed.  In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal criticised the decision of the Employment Tribunal.  In the Employment Tribunal, despite accepting the medical evidence and what the Claimant described as the impact of the condition on him, the decision was reached that the impact was not substantial.  The Employment Tribunal emphasised that substantial meant more than minor or trivial.

Q: What else did the case decide?

It is important when considering the issue of the impact of the condition, that the focus is placed on those activities that the individual cannot do, or which they find more difficult due to their condition.  In this case the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning seemed to have focussed overly on what the individual could do. 

Q: What are the points that employers should bear in mind as a result of this case?

While no new legal principles have been created, the case highlights the importance for employers of ensuring that clear medical evidence is obtained wherever possible, and where appropriate for clear challenges to be made if it is not accepted that the employee did encounter particular difficulties in carrying out day to day activities at work.

Further reading

Temporary relaxation of right to work check requirements to end on 16 May

Blog, Legal Updates
The Home Office has confirmed that the temporary Covid-19 adjusted right to work check measures will cease on 16 May 2021, but what does this mean for employers?
Read more Read

The good divorce

In Samantha Jago’s experience, the golden rule for an amicable divorce doesn’t exist, but a big dose of realism goes a long way
Read more Read

DMH Stallard welcomes new colleagues to city office

Blog, News & PR
Our Family team has grown as we introduce our new colleagues from our recent merger with Brookman Solicitors
Read more Read

A bit of a buzz – new electrical safety regulations switched on

Blog, Legal Updates
Private landlords must now ensure all tenancies comply with new safety regulations; Kristine Ng considers the new rules
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch