This case looked at what normal day-to-day activities mean within the context of disability discrimination. In this case the claimant's disability discrimination complaints were dismissed by the employment tribunal because it found that she was not a disabled person as there was no substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This was overturned on appeal.
Background
Under the Equality Act 2010, a person is disabled if they suffer from a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The facts
The claimant, Mrs Williams was a social worker for Newport City Council, working in the fostering team. The fostering team was responsible for assessing prospective foster carers. Sometimes these assessments were challenged in the family courts and members of the team attended court. Mrs Williams did not usually attend court but was asked to attend court on a matter decided by a colleague in June 2016. At this court hearing, she was unable to answer the Judge’s questions and was heavily criticised, leaving her anxious about future court hearings.
In March 2017, the claimant was informed that she would be required to attend court as part of her duties, as and when necessary. She was very anxious at this prospect and was signed off with work-related stress. In February 2018, her GP advised that she was likely to make a full recovery provided she was not required to make court appearances. However, during her 18-month absence, Newport City Council did not remove the requirement to attend court and her grievance, and appeal, against this decision was unsuccessful. The respondent maintained that attending court was an essential element of the claimant’s duties. Mrs Williams did not return to work and was ultimately dismissed under the respondent's attendance procedure.
Mrs Williams brought claims of unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld her unfair dismissal claim, but not her disability discrimination claims, as it decided she was not disabled.
The tribunal found that the claimant had a mental impairment at all relevant times (anxiety), from when her absence began, until her dismissal. However, it found that, from around the end of August 2017, her mental health had improved to the point where she would have been able to carry out all of her duties apart from attending at court. It found that attending at court was not, itself, a normal day-to-day activity, whether in her work role or in general life and, on that basis, she was not a disabled person.
Allowing the appeal, the EAT held that the tribunal had failed to consider the implications of its own findings that, after August 2017, Mrs Williams continued to be signed off work, so long as the possibility that she might have to attend court remained. Given that the respondent maintained and indicated that it would not remove the requirement to attend court, the tribunal had been bound to conclude that the effect of the appellant's impairment was that the prospect of being required to attend court caused her such a degree of anxiety that she was unable to return to work at all. Accordingly, the tribunal should have concluded that the impairment substantially affected her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, and that this was sufficiently long-term to amount to a disability.
What does this mean for employers?
Although attending court will not necessarily always be a normal day-to-day activity, the test for disability was still satisfied in this case because failing to remove this requirement meant the employee was not be able to do her job at all.
It is important that employers always carefully and critically consider whether reasonable adjustments can be made prior to dismissing a disabled or potentially disabled employee.
