Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82
Mental or physical impairment, need only have a substantial adverse effect on one day to day activity, not on all, found a recent judgment at Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). This case has a significant impact on the legal and practical take as to what does or does not amount to the substantial adverse effect that an impairment can have in disability discrimination claims.
The claimant, Mr Stedman, had diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and brought claims of disability discrimination against Haven Leisure Ltd after his job application to become an Animation Host was unsuccessful.
At the original Employment Tribunal hearing, the judge concluded that the claimant was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) by looking at and comparing the day to day activities that he could not and could do, finding the latter to be "what one might expect from somebody who is not disabled". So for example, he could travel on public transport as long as it was not crowded and was a social person and academically successful.
Mr Stedman appealed arguing that this decision was “perverse” as the judge had failed to give enough weight to the day to day activities that he struggled with, like forming friendships.
His appeal was successful and the case was returned to the Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The EAT judgement made some key (and novel) points:
A formal diagnosis of ADHD and ASD can not only go to showing that someone has an impairment but also can go towards the “impact” argument and whether or not the impairment has a “substantial adverse effect” as section 6 of the statute requires. That is, by making that diagnosis, the specialist is necessarily stating that the individual in question will have functioning issues that are different from the “norm”.
Mental or physical impairment need only have a substantial adverse effect on one day to day activity, not on all.
The proper test that the Tribunal should have applied was looking at the individual’s functioning with the impairment and hypothetically without – not “weighing” out activities he could do against those that he could not.
Saltworks now offers an informal, 60 minute, lunchtime session where our lawyers come in and talk to your team, over a sandwich, about neurodiversity in the workplace. We would address a number of issues including inclusivity and legal obligations and other valuable takeaways for employers from the Stedman case: