McLauchlan v Chubb Electronic Security Systems Ltd

A mental impairment does not establish disability unless, at the relevant time, it has a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must consider what the person can and cannot do, including difficulties in daily activities. Continued employment and performance at work are relevant evidence but are not determinative.

A victimisation claim also requires a causal link between the protected act and the alleged detriment. An Employment Tribunal may reject such a claim where its factual findings show that the impugned decisions were taken for independent reasons.

The Claimant appealed from the dismissal by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne of disability discrimination and victimisation claims against his employer. He contended that he had been disabled from spring 2007 and that subsequent ill treatment was because of disability or protected acts.

The Tribunal accepted that he had a mental health impairment and that he was later disabled. It found, however, that the impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. It also rejected complaints concerning disciplinary hearings and the removal of a company car. Following case-management directions, the Employment Judge supplied further reasons on the victimisation issues.

The central issues on appeal were whether the Tribunal had erred in its statutory disability assessment, given adequate reasons, and lawfully rejected causation in the victimisation claims.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that, although the Claimant had a mental health impairment and was later accepted to be disabled, it did not have a substantial adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities at the time material to the complaints.

2. The Tribunal correctly assessed the Claimant's abilities and difficulties by reference to cogent medical and factual evidence. Its finding that he was functioning at a high level was open to it. The ability to continue working was not determinative of disability, because work and normal day-to-day activities are distinct inquiries; nor did the Tribunal treat work as determinative.

3. The requirement in section 1 and Schedule 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not met on the facts found. The deduction-of-effects point did not assist the Claimant because there was no relevant medication at the relevant time. There was no issue about the long-term element.

4. The reasons challenge failed. Read in the context of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal's reasons were compliant with the applicable reasons standard and adequately explained its conclusions.

5. The additional reasons supplied by the Employment Judge cured the gap concerning victimisation. The decision not to postpone disciplinary hearings was made on medical advice, not because of any protected act. The removal of the company car followed expiry of its lease while the Claimant was absent, not the making of a grievance. Those causation findings were for the Tribunal and disclosed no error of law.

6. The Tribunal refused the Claimant's consequent application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of the disability discrimination and victimisation claims.
• Employment Tribunal: following an 11-day hearing at Newcastle upon Tyne, the Tribunal dismissed the claims in reasons sent to the parties on 25 August 2011. The Employment Judge later provided a reply dated 10 September 2012 addressing two victimisation matters.