The impact of ADHD and autism was evident in the rules, EAT

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that a diagnosis of ADHD or Autism can have a significant impact on the definition and impact of disability.

Harry Stedman was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and ADHD in the case Stedman v Haven Leisure. He was turned down for a job at the holiday company Haven.

The employment tribunal rejected his claim of disability discrimination on the grounds that his impairment had no substantial impact on his day-today activities and therefore did not meet Equality Act definition of person with disability.

Stedman filed an appeal, and now the EAT has ruled the original tribunal erred in ruling that the claimant’s impairments didn’t amount to a disabilities.

Stedman claimed the decision that he didn’t have a disability is “perverse”, given that he submitted a report by a recognized clinician that confirmed his diagnosis.

In the appeal, it was also claimed that the judge at the first tribunal had concentrated on what Stedman can do rather than his limitations. In the original case, it was cited that he had a college degree and could visit his friends and form social relationships.

Holly Stout, Employment Judge, observed that a diagnosis of ADHD could be used to prove not only an impairment but its impact.

The diagnosis is a clinical judgment that the patient has significant (i.e. The EAT ruled that the clinically’more serious or significant’ difficulties in the areas covered by the diagnoses were more than trivial.

The judge noted that the impairment could have a “substantial effect” on only one daily activity.

She said that the comparison should have been made between “the claimant and what they would be hypothetically without the impairment”.

The EAT rejected Haven’s claims that Stedman’s appeal lacked credibility and allowed it to succeed.

A new tribunal will be assigned to examine the evidence.

Personnel Today offers employee relations opportunities

Browse Employee Relations Jobs