By Jazmeer Jackson, Employment Rights Lawyer &
Neil Guss Regional Employment Rights Manager
Background
Mr Harry Stedman applied for a role as an Animation Host with Haven Leisure Ltd. He has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). After being rejected for the role, he brought claims of disability discrimination, arguing that his conditions met the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that Mr Stedman was not disabled for the purposes of the Act. The tribunal focused heavily on what he had been able to achieve—such as gaining a degree and performing in public—rather than the effects of his conditions on his day-to-day life.
Mr Stedman appealed, arguing that the tribunal had failed to apply the correct legal test and had not properly considered the adverse impact of his impairments on everyday activities like communication, concentration and managing change.
EAT Decision
The EAT upheld Mr Stedman’s appeal, finding that the ET had misapplied the law and failed to properly assess his case. Key points included:
- Misapplication of Legal Test
The tribunal wrongly focused on what Mr Stedman could do rather than considering how his impairments limited his abilities compared to someone without those impairments - Undue Weight on Achievements
Completing a degree or performing in public did not prove that his conditions had no adverse effect. The EAT emphasised that success in some areas does not negate the existence of substantial difficulties in others. - Failure to Assess Evidence Fairly
The tribunal failed to give proper weight to psychiatric evidence and Mr Stedman’s own account of his day-to-day challenges, such as social anxiety and difficulty using public transport. - Fresh Hearing Ordered
The EAT concluded that the errors were significant and sent the case back to a new tribunal for a full rehearing of the disability issue.
Commentary
This case is a clear reminder that disability under the Equality Act is not measured by career success or qualifications. It’s about how a condition affects everyday life. The ruling reinforces that:
- Tribunals must apply the statutory test correctly and avoid over-relying on surface-level achievements.
- Lived experience and clinical diagnoses should be fully considered when assessing disability status.
Practical Implications for Trade Unions
- Support members in clearly documenting how their conditions impact everyday tasks—not just work-related achievements.
- Challenge decisions that ignore or downplay the effects of neurodivergent or hidden conditions.
- Ensure members have access to independent medical evidence where possible to support claims of disability under the Equality Act.
