Infection not disability

An employee with a condition of the immune system that makes them prone to infections, but which is controlled by medication, is not “disabled”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held.

In Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris [2012] UKEAT 0031/12/3010, the EAT set aside the employment tribunal’s finding that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

Mrs Justice Slade held there was insufficient evidence to show the condition, Selective IgA Deficiency, caused substantial adverse effects. While the employee had suffered a three-and-a-half-month period of sickness in 2007, there was insufficient evidence that this would recur.

Slade J said: “The statute requires a causal link between the impairment and a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out day-to-day activities...If on the evidence the impairment causes the substantial adverse effect on ability to carry out day-to-day activities, it is not material that there is an intermediate step between the impairment and its effect provided there is a causal link between the two.”

However, she found that the evidence relied on by the tribunal “does not adequately support a conclusion that increased frequency of infections would result in a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities”.