Employment Appeal Tribunal case study: Stedman -v- Haven Leisure Ltd 2025

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) has recently considered an appeal regarding disability status under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”). This case serves as an important reminder of the principles the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) must consider when assessing disability under the Act.

Background facts and Employment Tribunal hearing

Mr Stedman, who has diagnoses of autism and ADHD, was unsuccessful in his application for the role of Animation Host at Haven Leisure Ltd (“Haven”). Consequently, Mr Stedman brought claims of both direct and indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

A preliminary question that arose and which the Tribunal had to address was whether or not Mr Stedman had a disability within the meaning of the Act. Mr Stedman provided a disability impact statement to the ET, which set out the impact of his condition on his day-to-day activities as follows:

• Difficulties forming friendships
• Memory/concentration issues and the need for shopping lists
• Avoiding crowded public transport
• Excluding himself from social activities
• Difficulties interacting/communicating at work

The ET ultimately held that Mr Stedman was not disabled under the definition in section 6 of the Act. The ET held that whilst Mr Stedman did suffer from a mental impairment, this did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Mr Stedman appealed to the EAT.

Appeal

Mr Stedman’s grounds of appeal were as follows:

1. The decision that he did not have a disability was perverse in light of the contents of a medical report which confirmed his diagnoses of autism and ADHD.
2. The ET erred in failing to recognise that Mr Stedman’s difficulty in forming friendships and inability to use public transport when crowded amounted to ‘substantial’ adverse effects on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities:
3. The ET erred in failing to decide whether or not the following matters set out in Mr Stedman’s disability impact statement had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities:
   1. Struggling to remember things and difficulty concentrating.
   2. Excluding himself from social activities.
   3. Struggling to interact and communicate with colleagues and customers.
4. The Judge erred by focussing on what Mr Stedman could do, rather than what he could not do or could only do with significant difficulty.

The EAT dismissed the first ground of appeal. The EAT noted that, whilst the ET must consider medical evidence, the ET was right to focus on the evidence that Mr Stedman put forward in his Impact Statement rather than the contents of the report. The EAT also dismissed part of the third ground, confirming the ET’s decision that Mr Stedman’s difficulty with remembering shopping without a list was equally expected from someone who is not disabled. The EAT also concluded that Mr Stedman’s difficulties with concentrating were overstated, given his academic achievements.

However, the EAT upheld the second and fourth  grounds of Mr Stedman’s appeal, noting that the ET had failed to keep in mind the following three legal principles:

1. The right comparison to apply is between the Claimant’s abilities as they are with the impairment and what they would hypothetically be without the impairment;
2. It is sufficient that a Claimant experiences a substantial adverse effect on the ability to carry out just one day-to-day activity; and
3. The Claimant’s ability to carry out other day-to-day activities can be used for context, but not to balance the activities the Claimant is strong in compared to what they find difficult.

Ultimately, the EAT held that the ET’s decision was “totally flawed”. The case will now be remitted to be heard in front of a fresh Tribunal.

Contact us