Patel v Oldham MBC
The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) states, among other things, that claimants must have an impairment that has lasted (or is likely to last) 12 months. In Patel v Oldham MBC the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that when deciding whether the effects of an impairment had lasted that long, it could take into account the effects of a secondary impairment that had developed from the original.
Basic facts
Mrs Patel, a teacher, was off sick three times between February and December 2005 with mild myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord) which affected her groin and left leg. She then developed a secondary myofacial pain syndrome (leg pain) in January 2006 which affected her left groin and upper leg. After further absences, she was dismissed for incapability on 30 April 2007.
She claimed disability discrimination under the DDA on the ground that she had a physical impairment which had a long-term effect on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
Relevant law
Section one of the DDA states that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Schedule one, paragraph two of the DDA states that to have a “long-term effect”, the impairment must have lasted or be likely to last for at least 12 months.
Tribunal decision
The tribunal said that although Mrs Patel had suffered from two periods of physical impairment, neither of them had lasted for 12 months, nor were they likely to.
As she had therefore failed to prove that the impairment had a “long term effect” on her as required under the DDA, it did not have jurisdiction to hear her complaint of disability discrimination.
EAT decision
But the EAT disagreed. It said that, when assessing whether an impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months, tribunals must look at whether another illness is likely to develop or has developed from the original impairment. If so, it can be aggregated onto the original condition to satisfy the DDA.
In this case, the EAT said that Mrs Patel had suffered from two different consecutive impairments. The tribunal, however, had failed to consider whether her secondary myofascial pain syndrome had developed from the myelitis and if so, whether the effects of the first impairment had lasted for at least 12 months.
It therefore remitted the issue to the original tribunal to reconsider this point.