The claimant was employed as a Customer Services Advisor and claimed that he was disabled within the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that he was unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of his disability. In dismissing the claim the tribunal highlighted the authority of Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4 which set out the 4 separate conditions that must be demonstrated before a disability will be recognised. 

The difficulty for the claimant was showing that the adverse effect of his condition (irritable bowel syndrome) was ´long term´. Ultimately it was held that in assessing the likelihood of an effect lasting 12 months that account should be taken of the circumstances at the time the alleged discrimination took place, not after.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

This case is a good illustration of a tribunal noting that in assessing the likelihood of an effect lasting 12 months, anything happening after the date the alleged discrimination took place will not be considered. Dates are understandably of crucial importance in such an exercise and at the date of termination no formal diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome had been made. 

The tribunal praised the employer in this situation for keeping a detailed attendance note during the ´relevant period´ starting when the claimant first went home sick and ending with the effective date of termination. In such cases an employer will be in a much stronger position when it can point to specific dates along the disciplinary timeline which will inevitably be analysed by the tribunal alongside medical records for relevant dates and times.