Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionHR practiceHR strategyDisability

How far should the Disability Discrimination Act go?

by Personnel Today 29 Apr 2008
by Personnel Today 29 Apr 2008

A recent Glasgow employment tribunal ruled that baldness was not a disability. James Campbell, a 61-year-old retired teacher, argued that his baldness was an impairment which had a “substantial and long-term adverse effect” on his ability to do his job as a result of alleged teasing and bullying by the pupils he taught.

To the relief of employers, the tribunal disagreed. The employment judge noted that, “If baldness was to be regarded as an impairment then perhaps a physical feature such as a big nose or being smaller than average height might be regarded as an impairment”.

All very sensible, most will conclude. However, the case does raise some interesting questions about how far the scope of protection under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) should go in protecting employers and employees.

Definition

The definition of disability has been significantly extended since the Act first came into force. While the broad intentions and effect of the legislation are to be applauded, the extent of employers’ obligations to comply with the DDA, in particular in identifying disabilities and making reasonable adjustments, should not be underestimated.

The lack of clarity that remains in determining whether an individual has a disability for DDA purposes is unsatisfactory.

The most recent amendments to the DDA extended the definition of disability to cover HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis as soon as the illness is diagnosed.

However, it also removed the requirement that the mental impairment be “clinically well recognised” has led to greater uncertainty about the extent to which conditions such as stress or anxiety might fall within the scope of the DDA.

Effect not condition

Case law and the government’s 2006 DDA guidance have also confirmed that it is the effects of impairments that need to be considered, rather than the underlying conditions.

Importantly, the guidance has given greater scope for individuals to argue that they are unable to modify their behaviour to prevent or reduce the effects of an impairment on day-to-day activities, on the grounds that doing so would cause pain, fatigue or a loss of energy and motivation.

This could be particularly relevant in the case of impairments suffered as a result of obesity or substance abuse, for example, where there is an element of personal responsibility.

Sensible limits

The employment judge in the Campbell case rightly identified the sensible limits of the meaning of ‘physical impairment’ for DDA purposes. However, it remains likely that we will see increasing numbers of controversial disability discrimination cases being brought by individuals seeking to test the boundaries of protection under the DDA.

While common sense prevailed in the Campbell case, the government needs to reconsider whether the DDA and related guidance provide adequate clarification – and limitations – on the meaning of disability, and also whether a greater emphasis should be placed on individual rather than corporate responsibility in certain cases.

Key points




  • Certain conditions are specified as being “deemed” disabilities for Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) purposes Ð including blindness, severe disfigurements, cancer and HIV.


  • In other cases, an individual’s condition must meet the statutory definition of disability to be protected under the DDA -however, this can often lead to uncertainty particularly in the case of mental impairment.


  • Certain conditions are excluded from the DDA, such as substance addition – however providing an impairment falls within the definition of disability, its cause is irrelevant


  • Employers should audit all policies and procedures for disability bias and regularly review the effectiveness of procedures for identifying potential disabilities and reasonable adjustments.

by Adam Fuge, employment partner, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin

Personnel Today
Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
FPS Umbrella launches childcare voucher scheme
next post
Lord Leitch defends his skills report

You may also like

EHRC supports tribunal claim for ‘menopause discrimination’

2 Oct 2023

National living wage to exceed £11 in 2024

2 Oct 2023

Meet Andrew, the chief executive – according to...

29 Sep 2023

Women at FTSE 100 firms won’t gain equality...

28 Sep 2023

Labour pledges small business menopause guidance

27 Sep 2023

Finance regulator consults on tougher conduct rules

25 Sep 2023

One in four over 50s working part-time

25 Sep 2023

What does it mean to be an HR...

22 Sep 2023

AI in employment: the pitfalls and laws on...

21 Sep 2023

Coalition of firms sets out to boost diversity...

21 Sep 2023

  • Almost a fifth of UK workers feel undervalued – we need to solve this PROMOTED | A new report has found...Read more
  • Discover the value of CIPD accreditation PROMOTED | See how the CIPD can increase your earning potential...Read more
  • What does it mean to be an HR professional in 2024? (survey) PROMOTED | The world of HR is changing rapidly...Read more
  • The Contractor Management Mastery Pack: Everything you need to manage and pay global contractors PROMOTED | Answers to cross-border...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+