Disability; long-term effect; whether an impairment was likely to recur or last 12 months must be determined by reference to the evidence available at the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Disability; defines 'clinical depression' vs 'adverse life reaction'; symptoms characteristic of depression lasting 12+ months usually qualify as a disability. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Disability; stress; long-term stress reactions to adverse life events may not amount to a mental impairment if they are just an 'entrenched reaction'. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Disability; long-term effect; whether an impairment was likely to last 12 months must be assessed at the date of the alleged discriminatory act, not with hindsight.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Disability; long-term effect; recurrence. Whether a substantial adverse effect is likely to recur (Sch 1 para 2(2) EqA) is a question of fact, assessed at the date of the alleged act without regard to later events (McDougall; All Answers). Episodic recurrence will often suggest a further episode could well happen, but not always: where the effect was triggered by a particular event itself unlikely to continue or recur, a tribunal may find it not likely to recur (Singh LJ at [95]). The passage concerns recurrence; it does not decide the 'likely to last 12 months' limb, to which it applies only by analogy.
Unfair dismissal; Polkey; disability; endometriosis. The EAT (HHJ Tayler) allowed the claimant's appeal. On Polkey, the reduction is assessed on what the employer would or might have done had it had the opportunity to remedy the defect that made the dismissal unfair. The onus is on the respondent: the tribunal erred by asking what it would have done itself rather than requiring the respondent to prove what it would have done [79]-[83]. On disability, the reasoning was wholly inadequate to show the tribunal had analysed the evidence. Having formed an adverse view of the claimant's credibility it ignored her impact statement, recited an unattributed generalisation about endometriosis, and failed to engage with the occupational health and consultant evidence or with whether recovery from surgery was itself an adverse effect [100]-[104]. The s.15 finding fell with it [113]-[114]. Remitted to a fresh tribunal [115]. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.