Tuesday 19th October 2021
This is an appeal by the Claimant against the order of the EAT (Choudhury J) sealed on 6/10/20 dismissing his appeal from the ET’s decision that C was not disabled within the meaning of s. 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The C was a sales executive with R.
C’s employment was terminated on 8/9/17 ostensibly for reasons to do with capabiltiy and attitude. C filed a claim for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and deduction of wages.
The ET held that C did not have a disability, but his claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.
The EAT held that the ET did not err in concluding that the long-term requirement in the definition of disability was not met. The ET was entitled to conclude on the evidence that although there was a substantial adverse effect in 2013 and again in 2017, in neither case was it likely that the adverse effect would last for 12 months or that it would recur. The ET had correctly applied “likely” as if it meant “could well happen” and had approached the question of likelihood of recurrence correctly.
The ET also did not err in deciding that R did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability.
Lower Court Judgment: