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.

Workplace Relationships Broken Down? Always Avoid a Knee-Jerk Response

Where irresolvable differences of opinion render an employment relationship entirely unworkable, dismissal may be justified. However, as one case showed, a knee-jerk response is never wise and a failure to allow time for reflection and the observance of proper procedures is likely to have serious financial consequences. The case concerned the chief operating officer and founder of a technology company whose relationship with his co-founders had become so strained that a psychologist…

Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been…

Indoor Ski Slope Operator Not to Blame for Woman’s Agonising Fall

Some sports are inherently risky and unfortunate accidents inevitably occur for which no one is to blame. The High Court resoundingly made that point in the case of a woman who was grievously injured when she fell on an indoor ski slope. The middle-aged woman had not skied for 35 years when she attended the ski slope with a view to honing her skills in preparation for a holiday. She was descending the learner slope when she fell, suffering a complex leg fracture. Despite reconstructive surgery…