Employee Prey to Paranoid Delusions ‘Not Disabled’, Court of Appeal Rules

The statutory definition of ‘disability’ came under close Court of Appeal analysis in an employment case concerning a sales executive plagued by paranoid delusions that he was being followed and constantly monitored by a malign gang of Russians.

Following a relationship with a Ukrainian…

Nov 26, 2021

Pexels energepiccom 288477 1024x768

The statutory definition of ‘disability’ came under close Court of Appeal analysis in an employment case concerning a sales executive plagued by paranoid delusions that he was being followed and constantly monitored by a malign gang of Russians.

Following a relationship with a Ukrainian woman, the man developed a belief that he was being tracked in person and in the digital world. He installed CCTV at his home and was nervous about communications technology. He changed his email address at least 10 times and sometimes felt unable to go home, instead booking himself into hotels. He was eventually diagnosed with a delusional disorder.

After eight years’ service with a finance company, he was dismissed on grounds of his attitude and that he lacked the skillset to fulfil his role effectively. He subsequently lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings claiming, amongst other things, that he was a victim of disability discrimination. In a decision that was later upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the ET dismissed that complaint on the basis that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Ruling on his challenge to that outcome, the Court noted that the Act defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The effect of an impairment is long term if it has lasted, or is likely to last, for at least 12 months. If an impairment ceases to have a substantial long-term effect, it is treated as continuing to have such an effect if it is likely to recur.

The ET accepted that the man’s delusional beliefs had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities of sleeping and social interaction. However, that effect was not continuous. During the four years prior to his dismissal, it held sway during two distinct periods, each lasting a few months. On that basis, the ET found that the effect was not long term. Given that the relapse he suffered prior to his dismissal was triggered by a particular event – a discussion about remuneration – the ET rejected arguments that the effect was likely to recur.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court found that, in substance, it amounted to an attempt to challenge the ET’s findings of fact. There was no error of principle in the ET’s approach to the case and it gave adequate reasons for reaching conclusions on the evidence that were not criticised as perverse. The ET was in any event entitled to find that, at the relevant time, the employer had no actual or constructive knowledge of the man’s alleged disability.

You May Be Disabled in Common Parlance But Not in Law – Guideline Ruling

People have differing views as to what does or does not constitute a disability but, in employment law terms, the word has a very specific meaning. An Employment Tribunal (ET) succinctly made that point in finding that a workshop manager who suffered lower back pain and sciatica was not, in the legal sense, disabled. Following his dismissal by a design company, the man lodged proceedings with the ET complaining of, amongst other things, disability discrimination. The issue of whether his…

Working Time – Shop Worker’s Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim Upheld

If you have been sacked for asserting your statutory rights, an employment lawyer will see to it that you are justly compensated. The point was powerfully made by the case of a retail sales assistant who complained that, by instructing her to work on 14 consecutive days, her employer was treating her like a slave. The woman was very upset when her employer asked her to work continuously for a fortnight whilst her manager was on holiday. No satisfactory solution was found and the employer…

What is a Detriment? EAT Ruling Clearly Sets Out the Correct Legal Test

The question of whether someone has suffered a ‘detriment’ is the central issue in a great many employment cases where discrimination or victimisation is alleged. In an important decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given authoritative guidance on the correct legal test to be applied in such cases. When applying to become a police officer, a man at the outset disclosed to the force concerned that he was in the process of pursuing an employment claim against another force, alleging…