In person For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Miss Elaine Parker met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 because of Type II Diabetes. The tribunal found that she did. It noted that she was diagnosed at the end of August 2018, had symptoms recorded around that time including blurred vision, thirst, frequent urination, high blood sugar, slow-healing wounds and thrush, and was then treated first with gliclazide and later metformin from 4 December 2018.

The judge accepted that the condition had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities intermittently during the relevant period. The evidence relied on included hypoglycaemic episodes, shaking, lack of concentration, difficulty functioning properly, and fatigue and tiredness after work. Although there was improvement over time, the tribunal found that these effects were still present at points up to the claimant's resignation on 22 July 2019.

Applying the Equality Act 2010 definition, the judge said it was not necessary to decide the matter by reference to the 'progressive condition' route because the condition was already having a substantial adverse effect. The tribunal also relied on the Secretary of State's guidance, including paragraphs B7, B10 and B12, and referred to Metroline Travel Limited v Stoute and Taylor v Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited. It held that the claimant could not always be expected to control the condition purely through diet and lifestyle adjustments, particularly where the physical demands of her work interfered with her ability to manage blood sugar levels.

The tribunal concluded that there was a likelihood of recurrence beyond the 12-month period because the claimant's coping measures did not reliably prevent further episodes in the work environment. As a result, it found that she was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that the claims could proceed further.