Are we moving closer to a social model of disability, asks Charles Pigott
The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd EAT/0123/15 concerns an employee who was dismissed on capability grounds after a car accident had left him with spinal injuries.
His job involved selecting and loading cases of goods weighing up to 25kgs. Prior to his accident he was able to keep up with the required pick rate, which had been agreed with the recognised trade union. After his accident he could only meet the required speed for half the time.
His disability discrimination claim was dismissed by the employment tribunal because it decided that “picking” was not a normal day-to-day activity. It followed that Mr Banaszczyk did not meet the statutory definition of a disabled person. This decision has now been reversed by the EAT.
What are normal day-to-day activities?
The definition of a person with a disability in s 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) requires a potential claimant not only to establish
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
