The law states that someone has a disability 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”. In Williams v Newport City Council, the EAT held that the claimant was a disabled person because she suffered anxiety and was not fit to return to work until the Council removed a requirement to attend court.
Basic facts
Ms Williams was a social worker in the Council’s fostering team. Some of her colleagues were required to carry out “viability assessments” into the suitability of individuals to care for a child although she herself was not. In June 2016, however, she was asked by her manager to attend court about an assessment that was being challenged even though she had had no direct involvement in it. The judge was very critical of her answers to the point whereby Ms Williams felt “traumatised” by the experience.
In March 2017, she was told that, from the end of that month, she would be required to undertake viability assessments and, therefore, potentially attend court. Given her previous experience, she became very anxious and was signed off by her GP as unfit for work due to stress. Several occupational health (OH) reports confirmed that she was unfit for work. In February 2018 Ms Williams’ GP advised that she would likely make a full recovery provided that she was not required to appear in court.
The Council decided that removing the obligation to appear in court was not a reasonable adjustment and she was dismissed in August 2018. Ms Williams lodged claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Tribunal decision
The tribunal found that Ms Williams had a mental impairment (anxiety) from March 2017 but that from August 2017 she was fit to return to work and carry out all her duties except for the requirement to attend court.
By that time OH had recorded that her tiredness had improved and that the main problem delaying her return was the stress of producing reports leading to court appearances. Considering that evidence, the tribunal considered that Ms Williams could carry out all other work activities, such as interacting with people and working on a computer, which were normal day-to-day activities.
However, as the only thing stopping her from returning to work was the stress, she experienced about being required to attend court (which it held was not a normal day-to-day activity), it concluded that she was not disabled.
Ms Williams appealed, arguing (among other things) that the tribunal had failed to properly consider its own findings that she continued to be signed off after August 2017 as unfit for work for as long as she was required to attend court.
EAT decision
The EAT was critical of the tribunal’s conclusion, not least because it had ignored its own findings that: 1) Ms Williams had been fit to return to work in August 2017, and 2) any reasonable employer would have removed the requirement for her to appear in court.
Given that her work tasks generally involved normal day-to-day activities and that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out those activities throughout the relevant period, the EAT held that the tribunal should have concluded that the Council’s refusal to remove the requirement to attend court caused Ms Williams to suffer such a degree of anxiety that she was unable to return to her job at all.
It, therefore, substituted its view that she was a disabled person and remitted her disability discrimination claims for reconsideration.