By Mandy Aulak

When it comes to disability discrimination cases, a critical—and often overlooked—starting point is this: does the individual meet the legal definition of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010?

The recent case of [ ] ( ) shines a spotlight on this. Despite diagnoses of ADHD and ASD for two children, the tribunal initially decided they were not disabled because their conditions didn’t meet the statutory definition. This outcome demonstrates a key legal principle: ’ .

The definition of disability is contained in (the topic of my next post). In summary, though, disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal daily activities.

This legal definition is crucial. Without proving it, disability discrimination claims cannot proceed, no matter the circumstances.

In this case, procedural fairness also played a major role which was essentially why the Upper Tribunal later overturned the initial ruling, finding errors in how evidence was handled and remitting it back to a new tribunal. The decision emphasises that tribunals must:

1. Properly evaluate medical evidence, even if it lacks input from schools or employers.

2. Hold hearings to test evidence when key factual disputes arise.

:

In disability discrimination cases, satisfying the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act is the foundation of the claim. Diagnoses matter, but their impact on daily life must be proven to meet the statutory standard.

Are you surprised by this decision? Did you assume that conditions such as ADHD and ASD were automatically considered disabilities under the Equality Act 2010?
#disability #EqualityAct #Discrimination #ADHD #ASD Sean Kennedy Talem Law