Interesting Judgement

[jay hay-char]

Metroline Travel vs Stoute. Type 2 Diabetes, controlled by diet, is not necessarily a disability for discrimination purposes.

Details of the case are here. The basis of the decision seems to be that controlling the applicant's T2 purely by avoiding sugary drinks (I suspect this is a bit of a simplification of the actual situation) isn't a severe enough restriction on the individual's circumstances to warrant his illness being regarded as a disability. All I'd say in addition is that the decision was made on the exact facts of this particular case, and that T2 controlled by medication, or requiring an extreme diet and/or exercise to control it, might not be regarded in the same way by a Tribunal. Nevertheless, this is a significant piece of case law and is likely to be widely quoted in future - particularly by M'Learned Friends representing employers facing T2-related discrimination cases.

NB also that this case is at Employment Appeal Tribunal level at the moment and may be taken to further appeal - though that probably depends on how deep Mr Stoute's pockets (and/or those of his union, if he has one) may be ....

 

[tim2000s]

It's worth reading because the Appeals Judge was a T2 diabetic!

 

[Spiker]

The Claimant, it should be noted, had a somewhat chequered employment history including, I note, diverting his bus so he could go and buy some chicken kebabs. Be that as it may, on the day in question, the Claimant arrived late claiming to have been suffering from diarrhoea and with an urgent need to use the WC. ​

:-D

Actually I think this case has more merit than the appeal judge thought. It doesn't appear to be about fizzy drinks. It seems to be about whether the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct because he was late for work due to Metformin-induced diarrhoea. Surely that's a valid disability discrimination claim, at least in principle? Perhaps the judge had not ever personally experienced Metformin's Revenge?

 

[jay hay-char]

In relation to the original case, you may have a point, although the kebab incident was probably an indicator of a lengthy previous history between the employee and employer.

However, this appeal hearing related purely and simply to the decision of the original Tribunal, that T2 was always a form of disability and therefore could be cited as a reason for a discrimination case to be brought. The original tribunal decision in relation to the particular case was that the guy's dismissal was not unfair, and he chose not to appeal against it, but it left the unresolved question of whether or not someone - anyone - with T2 would have grounds to bring a discrimination claim. Hope this makes sense

Case law - and employment case law in particular - can often be misleading, because a similar case brought on another occasion might be sufficiently different, even if only in a small detail, to produce a different outcome.

Keeps the lawyers in business, anyway .....