Case update

Autism and ADHD:

Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed an appeal against an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that a job applicant with autism and ADHD was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (the EqA).

Background

Mr Stedman applied unsuccessfully for a job with Haven Leisure Ltd (Haven). Mr Stedman subsequently brought a disability discrimination claim against Haven in relation to its handling of his job application in light of his autism and ADHD.

At a preliminary hearing, the ET had to decide whether Mr Stedman’s autism and ADHD amounted to a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the EqA. The ET held that, although Mr Stedman did have a mental impairment, it did not amount to a disability under the EqA because the impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Mr Stedman appealed to the EAT on the basis that the ET had incorrectly applied the law in this respect.

EAT decision and key takeaways

The EAT held that the ET’s decision should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to a new ET to determine afresh whether or not Ms Stedman was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the EqA.

The key points to take away from the EAT’s decision are as follows:

  • A diagnosis of autism or ADHD does not automatically consider someone disabled within the meaning of section 6 EqA – autism and ADHD can manifest in different ways for different people.
  • However, when a Tribunal has before it evidence of a clinical diagnosis of autism or ADHD, then unless there is some reason to doubt the reliability of that clinical judgment, the Tribunal must take that diagnosis into account not just as evidence that someone has a condition or impairment, but as evidence as to the impact of that impairment.
  • Once reliable evidence of a clinical diagnosis has been established, the Tribunal then needs to consider what it was that led the clinician to make the diagnosis in the claimant’s case, and to make findings about the claimant’s ability to carry out day-to- day activities.
  • The EAT held that the ET in this case had erred in law as they did not keep in mind these three legal principles when judging whether a mental or physical impairment has a substantial effect on day-to-day activities.

In light of the above, the EAT’s decision is helpful in clarifying the approach to determining how a Tribunal should approach the question of an impairment having a substantial adverse effect on carrying out normal day-to-day activities, for the purposes of section 6 EqA.

Practical takeaways

Employers and HR teams would not be expected to go through an assessment process as detailed as that undertaken before the ET in this case.

Nevertheless, there is a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments to allow a person with a disability to perform their job without being put at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled people (sections 20-22 EqA). As part of this, an employer must do all they can reasonably expected to do to find out if the employee is disabled.

In light of this case, employers and HR teams should ensure that any systems, policies and processes for supporting those with a disability to make reasonable adjustments are updated to ensure that ADHD and autism are expressly considered.