Paranoid Delusions Did Not Amount to a Disability for the Purposes of the Equality Act
The Court of Appeal recently confirmed that an employee who experienced two episodes of paranoid delusions was not disabled, as the episodes did not have a long-term substantial adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day to day activities.
We previously reported in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd the EAT decision in this case, where a Claimant who suffered two episodes of delusional beliefs in 2013 and 2017, was not considered disabled in law, because there was no long-term substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Facts
The Claimant was a senior sales executive, employed by the Respondent since 2009. His employers identified concerns with his timekeeping and attitude from the start of his employment. In May 2013, he began experiencing paranoid delusions that he was being tracked and monitored by a Russian gang. The delusions affected his work, in particular his timekeeping and attendance. The Claimant's condition improved and by September 2013, he reached a position where, whilst he still believed the gang was following him, he could manage his condition without letting it affect his work.
Despite the improvement in the Claimant's condition, his employer continued to have concerns about his timekeeping and attitude. These concerns were raised regularly with the Claimant at reviews between July 2014 and September 2017. In September 2017 the Claimant was dismissed on the grounds of capability. The Claimant alleged his dismissal was discriminatory on the grounds of disability.
What Is a Disability in Law?
A person will be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 if they have:
- a physical or mental impairment
- the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities
An impairment will be considered 'long-term' if it has lasted for at least 12 months, or is likely to last for at least 12 months.
Decision
The Court of Appeal has now confirmed the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant was not disabled in law. Whilst the Claimant's delusional beliefs persisted from 2013 to 2017, they had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities only between May and September 2013, and again from around April - June 2017, until the Claimant's dismissal. The Claimant was therefore unable to demonstrate a long-term impairment.
Comment
This case turns on a very specific set of circumstances, but is a useful reminder of the strategic value of considering the definition of a disability at the earliest stages of a process. Medical advice should be sought where there is any question of an employee potentially suffering from a disability. It is also sensible to explore whether any adjustments can be offered in order to help the employee perform to the required standards.
For more information, please contact Mark Stevens in our Employment Law team on 01173145401 or complete the form below.