The Appellant appealed a decision of the employment Appeal Tribunal which upheld an Employment Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his claim for disability discrimination. The Appellant complained of work related stress.

The Respondent occupational health advisors acknowledged this illness however said he was not disabled as he was not suffering from a depressive illness. The Appellants doctors then diagnosed him with ‘reactive depression’. The Appellant informed the defendant of his diagnosis in a grievance letter. During the course of the next two years the Appellant had long periods of absence due to work-related stress. During this time the defendant asked the occupational health advisers whether or not the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied to the Appellant. On several occasions they advised it was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was disabled for the purposes of the Act, however his claim failed on the ground that the defendant had not had the constructive knowledge of that disability.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal held that the Respondent was allowed to rely on the advise of its occupational health advisors that, despite the Appellants medical condition, he was not disabled within the meaning of the Act.

The Appellants appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in its route to its decision. The Appeal was allowed and it was held that an employer cannot simply ‘rubber stamp’ the opinion of a medical advisor. While the opinion of the health specialist will be important, the employer must take into consideration all the evidence made available to them at the time.

http://bit.ly/1fk1hcn