• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Type 2 is it classed as a disability

paul a carr

paul a carr

Active Member
Hi can anyone help.I've got type 2 and I'm on metformin and humilin I insulin + humalog insulin and I'm getting a bit fed up at work when I want to test my bloods and one of my Bose's keeps saying to me it not convenient I've been told by my doctor I have to check my bloods .am I covered under the disability act.
 
https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/...ed-by-diet-is-not-automatically-a-disability/
but.

"This is an interesting and potentially important decision. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common type, with 90% of approximately 3.1 million diabetics in the UK having type 2 diabetes. This case illustrates the fact that even where a medical condition is clinically well recognised, that in itself is not sufficient for it to be a disability. This case will also likely make it harder for people suffering from nut allergies, lactose intolerances, etc., who manage their conditions by avoiding certain foods/drinks, to claim that they are disabled. Note that the EAT accepted that medicated diabetes sufferers (type 1 or type 2) are regularly considered to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act."

So it seems if your condition is controlled by diet alone then no it does not qualify but if you are medicated then yes it does.
 
JohnEGreen said:
https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/...ed-by-diet-is-not-automatically-a-disability/
but.

"This is an interesting and potentially important decision. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common type, with 90% of approximately 3.1 million diabetics in the UK having type 2 diabetes. This case illustrates the fact that even where a medical condition is clinically well recognised, that in itself is not sufficient for it to be a disability. This case will also likely make it harder for people suffering from nut allergies, lactose intolerances, etc., who manage their conditions by avoiding certain foods/drinks, to claim that they are disabled. Note that the EAT accepted that medicated diabetes sufferers (type 1 or type 2) are regularly considered to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act."

So it seems if your condition is controlled by diet alone than no it does not qualify but if you are medicated then yes it does.
Click to expand...
I would speculate your categorisation is somewhat simplistic. I'm no expert, but I would speculate a T2 using insulin might be treated very similarly, if not the same, as T1s, after all the need to test, inject and in some cases, eat regularly are all present.

@paul a carr - if you are a member of a union you could ask,for their assistance with this.
 
As soon as you go on to insulin you get treated as a type 1. In a lot of ways thing are made easier flr you especially as you are given access to tbe daphne course. And things like tbat. But also dkwn sides like with the DVLA. I have been classed as type 2 for just over. 3 years until last monday when i got re diagnosed as type 1 lada
 
Firstly, the relevant legislation is now the 2010 Equalities Act.

Yes, if you're taking insulin, you should test and an employer should make reasonable changes to allow you to do this.

I'm trying to understand how testing is 'inconvenient'. It doesn't take very long to do. Is this person maybe a bit squeamish about small amounts of blood?

Is there a valid reason not to test?
 
CapnGrumpy said:
Firstly, the relevant legislation is now the 2010 Equalities Act.

Yes, if you're taking insulin, you should test and an employer should make reasonable changes to allow you to do this.

I'm trying to understand how testing is 'inconvenient'. It doesn't take very long to do. Is this person maybe a bit squeamish about small amounts of blood?

Is there a valid reason not to test?
Click to expand...

I can see it might be inconvenient for an individual to test if, say, they were working on a food production line, or other sterile or semi-sterile environment where it might involve more than a moment's distraction, but provided the Employer can be helped to see the way forward, by whatever means, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

I think it would also be worthwhile asking, politely, what "inconvenient" means to the employer in this context. Again, if the OP is using a clocking on and off, with breaks needing to be clocked off, it could be an inconvenience if there are several additional off/ons in the day to be accounted for, if the system isn't automated.

I have no idea what work the OP actually does, these are just potential examples as thought starters.
 
Back
Top