The Claimant has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He brought claims of disability discrimination against the Respondent. At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Judge determined that he was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. In considering whether someone has a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the EA 2010: (i) it is sufficient if the Claimant has a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity; (ii) the ET must not weigh what a Claimant cannot do against what they can do, either with reference to a single activity or generally in relation to all day-to-day activities; and, (iii) in judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the comparison is between the Claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment. The ET had made a number of errors as a result, in part, of failing to apply those principles. Although it was not perverse for the ET to have concluded in this case that the Claimant was not disabled, it was perverse for it to have done so on the basis of the facts it found and for the reasons that it gave. Further (obiter), a diagnosis of ASD or ADHD is not to be regarded only as constituting the ‘impairment’ for the purposes of section 6; the diagnosis reflects a clinician’s opinion as to the extent to which that individual’s functioning differs to the ‘norm’ and accordingly is also a relevant factor for the ET to take into account when considering whether the impairment has a ‘substantial adverse effect’.