Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd

For employment claims, the definition of disability under Equality Act 2010 must give effect to EU law. A long-term impairment need only hinder, rather than wholly prevent, full and effective participation in professional life.

The relevant work activity must be identified broadly. An employer's required speed or performance standard is not itself the activity where it is the barrier through which the impairment affects participation. A substantial adverse effect is assessed by comparing how the individual performs the activity with how that individual would perform it without the impairment.

The claimant was a warehouse picker whose work involved manually lifting and moving cases weighing up to 25 kilograms. Following a road accident, he had a long-term back condition. Occupational-health evidence, accepted by the Employment Judge, was that the condition prevented him from meeting the respondent's required picking speed.

The Employment Tribunal at Watford held, by a judgment dated 17 June 2014, that the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010. It gave no adequate explanation for that conclusion. The claimant appealed on the basis that his impaired ability to perform the work was a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge's conclusion that the claimant was not disabled did not meet the minimum standard of reasons. It was impossible to tell whether the judge had rejected the accepted occupational-health evidence, regarded the relevant work as outside normal day-to-day activities, or found the effect insubstantial, and why.

2. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could substitute a result only if the Employment Tribunal's findings admitted of one outcome. On the accepted findings, that condition was met. There was no dispute that the claimant had a long-term physical impairment.

3. The Equality Act 2010 definition had to be applied consistently with EU disability law. Disability in employment does not require complete exclusion from work. It includes a long-term impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.

4. The relevant activity was the manual lifting and moving of goods, partly by pallet truck. That was a normal day-to-day activity in working life, undertaken by many workers across warehousing, distribution and other occupations. The employer's pick rate was not the activity. It was a requirement concerning the manner and speed of performance, and could itself be a barrier to participation.

5. The impairment had a substantial adverse effect. The claimant was significantly slower than other workers, and than he would have been without the impairment, when lifting and moving cases. The required pick rate therefore demonstrated the practical barrier created by his impairment rather than excluding the activity from the statutory definition.

6. The Employment Judge's decision was replaced by a declaration that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant's appeal and substituted a declaration that he was disabled for the relevant period.
• Employment Tribunal at Watford: By judgment dated 17 June 2014, held that the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010.