Mr J Stirland v St John Ambulance — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr J Stirland met the definition of disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times. The respondent accepted that he had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, but did not accept that he was disabled. The tribunal applied the statutory definition and the authorities it cited, including the need to identify a mental impairment, an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, whether that effect was substantial, and whether it was long term.

The tribunal found that the claimant produced very limited medical evidence: a brief statement, a single page of medical notes, and a learning agreement from Sheffield Hallam University. It accepted that Asperger's Syndrome is a lifelong condition, but found no evidence that the impairment affected his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the relevant times. The judge noted that the claimant said he had never needed medical intervention for the condition, and that his evidence did not show a documented relationship between the diagnosis and any specific impairment in daily life.

The tribunal considered the claimant's evidence about needing routine, finding ambiguity stressful, preferring clear instructions, and having difficulty with social cues and non-verbal communication. It held that these matters were not shown by examples or supporting evidence to amount to a substantial adverse effect. It also found that the claimant had successfully coped with or avoided situations in which he might otherwise have been impaired, and that his evidence instead suggested he was able to participate fully in professional life. The claimant's direct and indirect disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation claims were unaffected by this preliminary decision.