Whilst the tribunal also had to decide the issue of whether the claimant was a victim of harassment in this case, the relevant legal issue was namely;

(1) At the time of the alleged discriminatory acts, was the claimant a ‘disabled person’, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by virtue of suffering from ‘Gout’ or ‘Obesity’ or a combination of both.

The tribunal were satisfied that the claimant was disabled by a combination of his morbid obesity and gout conditions and by each condition separately. However the implications of this case are what deserve analysis (see below).

PRACTICAL LESSONS

This decision attains its significance from its similarity to the recent European Court of Justice case of Karsten Kaltolf v the Municipality of Billund (Case – 354/13) which dealt with the same issue of whether obesity could constitute a disability. Ultimately, the ECJ recognised that whilst obesity itself is not an impairment, its effects may well result in a worker being disabled. The tribunal here was deferential to the medical evidence, which demonstrated a link between the health complications the claimant suffered and his obesity. 

Essentially, a tribunal will focus on whether a claimant’s limitations could hinder their ‘effective participation... in professional life on an equal basis’ which requires looking closely the nature of the impairments specific to the claimant. This Northern Irish example is surely emblematic of an increasingly important consideration for employers as the decision broadens the scope of potential Disability Discrimination claims. Suffering from obesity will not necessarily make an employee disabled, but this case echoes the ECJ decision that it may make it more likely.