Long Term Stress not Always a Disability
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a decision of the Employment Tribunal that a member of staff absent from work long-term with work-related stress was not disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Background
Under the Equality Act disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on the employee's ability to carry out day to day activities.
The Facts
In Herry v. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council and the Governing Body of Hillcrest School the Claimant, a design and technology teacher and part-time youth worker, had been absent from work continuously from June 2011 to April 2015. Until April 2013 the reasons for the Claimant's absences related to physical injuries: "fractured ankle", "post-operative recovery", "leg pain and stress", "ankle pain and stress".
From October 2013 the reasons for absence ceased to be physical and focused instead on stress: "stress at work", "work-related stress", "stress", "stress and anxiety".
The Claimant brought a disability discrimination claim against his employer in relation to incidents occurring between 4 April 2014 and 27 June 2014. The Employment Tribunal held that at this material time the Claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act. The Employment Tribunal determined that there was little or no evidence that the Claimant's stress had any effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
The Claimant appealed this decision arguing, amongst other things, that his long-term absence demonstrated that his condition had a long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The EAT upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal and found that a long period off work is not conclusive of the existence of a mental impairment. It held that there can be cases where a reaction to circumstances becomes entrenched without amounting to a mental impairment and that in this case the Employment Tribunal had determined that the Claimant's stress was very largely a result of his unhappiness about what he perceived to have been unfair treatment of him.
The EAT noted that, despite this stress, there was little evidence it had any effect on the Claimant's ability to carry out normal activities.
Best Practice
Although this case contains some helpful guidance for employers, caution is encouraged when deciding whether an employee suffering from stress is disabled. The margins are fine and ultimately it is only the Tribunal that can determine whether the definition of disability under the Equality Act is satisfied. Each case will turn on its specific facts.
Employers should seek to obtain information from occupational health and other medical practitioners which will allow them to make an informed decision about whether an employee meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act.