Disability 




“Disability” has a strict definition under the EA 10. To succeed in a tribunal claim, each limb of the definition must be satisfied. Under section 6 and schedule 1, EA 10, a person has a disability if they have a “physical or mental impairment” that has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect” on their ability to carry out “normal day-to-day activities”. 




A condition is “long-term” if it has lasted for 12 months, is likely to last at least 12 months, or for the rest of the person’s life.



“Substantial” means “more than minor or trivial” (section 212(1), EA 10). If something cannot be regarded as “trivial”, it will be substantial (Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2012] UKEAT/0316/12/KN). The time taken to perform an activity must be taken into account when deciding whether an effect is “substantial”. 




Tribunals must take into account the social model of disability that has developed under EU law when interpreting the definition of disability. This approach emphasises the social purpose of laws supporting the rights of disabled workers, namely the removal of barriers to full participation at work caused by the environment and by stereotypical attitudes to disability (Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab C-335/11 and C-337/11). 


There is no statutory list of normal day-to-day activities. Instead, a claimant must satisfy the tribunal that their own normal day-to-day activities are adversely affected by their condition. It is what someone cannot do as a result of their impairment that must be assessed, not what they can do (Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2012] UKEAT/0316/12/KN). 




Both work and non-work activities can be “normal day-to-day activities”. A work activity is “normal” if it is found in a range of different work situations, for example, standing for long periods, reading or talking on the telephone. Under EU law, it includes all activities relevant to enabling a person to participate in working life. 


The EU social model requires tribunals to take a broad approach to the meaning of “normal day-to-day activities”. In Banaszczyk v Booker Limited [2015] UKEAT/0132/15/RN, lifting and moving goods weighing up to 25kg, manually and using a pallet truck, was found to be a day-to-day activity for a warehouse operative. 






The test looks at whether an activity is normal for most people, not for the person concerned. For example, playing the piano to concert standard would not be a normal day-to-day activity, even though it is normal for a concert pianist. 




The phrase covers activities relevant to participation in professional life, such as carrying out an assessment or exam to achieve a promotion (Paterson v Commissioner of Police and the Metropolis [2007] ICR 1522), as well as doing police work on night shifts (Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary v Adams [2009] IRLR 612). Representing yourself in a tribunal is not a normal day-to-day activity, because this is not something people normally do in their professional life (Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2016] UKEAT 0101/16/1612).