Mr M Jeffers v The Secretary of State for Justice OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022

Mr M Jeffers, a prison officer employed by the Secretary of State for Justice, brought disability and age discrimination claims. This open preliminary hearing was listed to decide one issue only: whether he was disabled for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of his lower back condition. The parties agreed that he had a physical impairment of lower back pain and that it was long-term. The only live question was whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal set out the statutory test in s.6(1) Equality Act 2010 and noted that under s.212(1) a substantial effect means more than minor or trivial. It also referred to Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd on the meaning of substantial effect. The claimant gave evidence about longstanding lower back problems, a significant exacerbation after a bicycle accident in February 2018, and ongoing pain affecting activities including exercise, sport, standing, sitting, stair use, bending, lifting, and picking up his grandchildren.

The respondent argued that his evidence should not be accepted because there was limited medical corroboration, some alleged inconsistencies, and he had continued working without sick leave, including undertaking Control and Restraint training and overtime. The tribunal rejected those points. It found that many people with a long-term back injury simply cope as best they can, that the claimant had explained why he had not sought further treatment or raised the issue earlier, and that the differences in his evidence about pain levels were marginal and did not discredit him.

The tribunal concluded that his impairment had a more than trivial adverse effect on the day-to-day activities he described. It therefore held that he was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010, both at the relevant time between April and June 2021 and at the date of the hearing. No remedy was awarded because the hearing was confined to the preliminary disability issue and did not determine liability on the underlying claims.