header-logo header-logo

All in the mind?

12 June 2008 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Features , Public , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Are employers discriminating against disabled working minds? Neil Allen reports

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) protects job applicants and employees whose physical or mental impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Prior to December 2005, any mental impairment must also have resulted from or consisted of a “clinically well-recognised” mental illness. This diagnostic threshold was intended only to exclude moody or mildly eccentric claimants from statutory protection. However, “psychiatry is not an exact science. Diagnosis is not easy or clear cut” (R (on the application of B) v Ashworth [2005] 2 All ER 289 per Baroness Hale). As a result, DDA 1995 did nothing to prevent employers from treating less favourably those whose psychiatric symptoms were not clinically well-recognised.

Despite having little more than “a layman's rudimentary familiarity with psychiatric classification” (Morgan v Staffordshire University [2001] All ER (D) 119), employment tribunals have been expected to assess often complex expert evidence. The Employment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll