The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment in Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 (“the Case”) has provided clarification on the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) in the context of ADHD and Autism.

Background

The Claimant, Mr Stedman, had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). He applied for a job as an Animation Host with Haven Leisure Limited (“Haven”). Mr Stedman was rejected for the role and as a result he brought claims for disability discrimination for the way Haven had handled the application; his claims included claims of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Mr Stedman argued that his ASD and ADHD constituted a disability under the Act; that was disputed by Haven and therefore a preliminary issue arose as to whether he actually was a disabled person for the purposes of the protections under the Act.

Employment Tribunal (“the Tribunal”)

Section 6 of the Act defines a disability as a ‘physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.

Mr Stedman stated that he faced challenges in his day-to-day activities, including: forming friendships, using public transport, communicating with colleagues and concentrating on reading and writing tasks. He provided medical evidence from a Consultant Psychiatrist, who had diagnosed Mr Stedman with ASD and ADHD.

The Tribunal determined that Mr Stedman was not disabled for the purposes of the Act; it determined that Mr Stedman’s difficulties with ‘normal day-to-day activities’ were no more than might be typical of someone without a disability when carrying out activities, such as shopping, dealing with a breakup, and forming friendships. The Judge noted that Mr Stedman had completed a degree and BTEC examinations, and also considered that he may have exaggerated issues with reading and writing.

The Tribunal concluded that, despite the difficulties Mr Stedman faced in his daily activities, these were minor and did not have a significant impact on him. On that basis the Tribunal determined that he did not satisfy the legal definition of a disability.

Mr Stedman appealed that decision on the grounds that the Tribunal did not apply the appropriate legal test and did not adequately assess the detrimental effects of his impairments on daily activities.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”)

The EAT upheld the Claimant’s appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s decision. The EAT explored four main grounds of appeal and in each case determined the following:

Ground 1: That the decision that the claimant did not have a disability was perverse in light of the contents of the Consultant Psychiatrist’s report which confirmed his diagnosis of autism and ADHD.

This ground was dismissed on the basis that the medical report containing the ASD and ADHD diagnoses, did not contain evidence that the Tribunal was bound to accept regarding the impact of the disability, and it was reasonable for the Tribunal to focus on Mr Stedman’s impact statement as the primary evidence of the impact of Mr Stedman’s condition on his day-to-day difficulties.

The EAT confirmed however that the fact of a diagnosis is still relevant to the question of ‘substantial adverse effect’ of the condition on day-to-day activities. Therefore, if Tribunals are presented with diagnosis reports, these should be taken into account not solely for evidencing a condition, but also understanding the impact of the condition. Tribunals must engage with the professional’s report if the difficulties are significant enough to merit a diagnosis.

Ground 2: That the Judge failed to recognise that the following matters amounted to substantial adverse effects on Mr Stedman’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, or at least failed to consider whether their effect was ‘sufficientlysubstantial’ to meet the test under section 6 of the Act:

1. difficulty forming friendships;
2. inability to use public transport when crowded.

This ground was successful on the basis that the Tribunal had not kept in mind three key principles. Firstly, that the required comparison is between the claimant’s abilities as they are with the impairment, compared to, hypothetically, how they would be without the impairment; secondly, that it is sufficient for the claimant to experience a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out just one day-to-day activity to satisfy the definition; and lastly, it is not permissible to weigh up what a claimant can do, against what they cannot do, and it was not appropriate to compare certain day-to-day activities against other day-to-day activities as part of an overall assessment of the individual’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities generally.

Ground 3: That the Judge erred in failing to accept (alternatively, failing to reach factual findings on) the following matters set out in Mr Stedman’s disability impact statement, and accordingly failing to decide whether those matters had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities:

1. the claimant struggled to remember things and had difficulty concentrating;
2. the claimant excluded himself from social activities;
3. the claimant struggled to interact and communicate with colleagues and customers.

This succeeded in part; the successful element was that it was determined that the Tribunal was mistaken for not accepting the link between social anxiety and ASD and it failed to address Mr Stedman’s evidence that he struggled with interacting and communicating in the workplace with colleagues and customers. The Tribunal should not have concluded that this effect would not have a substantial adverse effect on the day-to-day activities of the Claimant.

Ground 4: That the judge was wrong to focus on what Mr Stedman can do, rather than what he cannot do, or can only do with significant difficulty, by relying on the facts that:

1. the claimant performs in public, forms social relationships and visits friends, rather than his social difficulties referred to above;
2. the claimant had completed a degree and BTEC examinations, rather than his memory and concentration problems referred to above;
3. the claimant can use public transport when not crowded, rather than his inability to use public transport when crowded.

This ground succeeded on the basis that it was found the Tribunal was wrong to focus on what the Claimant could do as against what he cannot do and what he struggles with. The EAT stressed it was wrong for the tribunal to place a significant emphasis on the Claimant’s accomplishments, including obtaining a degree and participating in public performances, rather than considering the impact of his conditions on his daily activities. Ultimately the Tribunal had placed far too much weight on the Claimant’s strengths over the difficulties he faced. It was emphasised that Tribunals should not use a “weighing up” approach.

Important takeaways

The Case serves as a useful reminder that

• the definition of ‘disability’ under the Act is determined, not by reference to qualifications, career success, and/or relationships, but how an individual is impacted in their day-to-day life;
• achievements in certain areas, does not eliminate the presence of significant challenges in others;
• Tribunals must engage with medical evidence when considering what constitutes a ‘substantial adverse effect’ and it should be considered in tandem with the individual’s own testimony;
• Tribunals should not compare claimants to individuals without disabilities; and (most significantly)
• a diagnosis indicates that a clinician has determined an individual’s functioning is significantly different from ‘typical levels’.

In the circumstances, individuals should be supported and encouraged to get diagnosed and document how their conditions impact their day-to-day lives because a clinical diagnosis is a relevant factor to be taken into account when assessing the impact of the individual’s condition and whether it has a substantial adverse impact on their day-to-day activities.

To read the original blogpost by Linky Trott and Ruby Clarke of Ally Law member firm Edwin Coe LLP, please click here.