Employment Discrimination Claims Easier After New Ruling

by Katy Murcutt - Paralegal

21 June 2010, filed under Employment

Employees claiming disability discrimination in relation to depression should have their cases assessed based on the effect of their condition and not on the basis of stringent medical diagnosis the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.

The EAT stated that tribunals were not required to diagnose an exact medical condition an employee was evidently suffering from as a precondition for finding they had been discriminated against. Mr Justice Uphill stated that tribunals must endeavour to observe an employee’s condition and the effect such a condition has had on their work and general duties of their employment.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal said that if someone behaves as if they are suffering depression and their abilities suffer as a result, then tribunals will most likely find that they are suffering from depression and can be protected under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

The case in question involved a woman who had suffered depression and who applied for a job at law firm DLA Piper. When the woman informed the company of her history of depression, the law firm withdrew the job offer letter stating that the job was no longer available as a result of the recession.

The woman claimed that the job offer was withdrawn as a result of her disclosure and that the law firm was acting in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. An Employment Tribunal rejected the womans claim as she was not, at that time, suffering from clinical depression.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled that the Employment Tribunal must reassess whether the woman was depressed at that time or not.

The woman had previously received a negative assessment at work in the run up to her application for the position at the law firm and this had triggered feelings of anxiety and despondency. The Tribunal said that this was directly related to the appraisal and was not clinical depression but a simple response to current events in her life.

The EAT recognised the issue in that the woman had suffered depression in 2005 and 2006 and stated that the Tribunal had failed to establish whether it was likely such depression would recur. If it was found that depression was likely to recur, the Tribunal should have found that the woman was suffering from depression when the job offerwas made, meaning that she was entitled to DDA protection.

The EAT recommended that a distinction should be drawn between depression and anxiety where possible, but recognised that this is not always achievable.