McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College

EAT: Judge McMullen QC, Mr D Jenkins and Mrs J M Matthias: 13 July 2007

The claimant, who had a history of mental illness, was offered a job at the respondent college subject to health clearance. The offer was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the health report had not cleared her as fit for work. Dismissing her complaint of disability discrimination, an employment tribunal found that the claimant suffered from persistent delusional and schizo-affective disorders amounting to a mental impairment within the meaning of paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that for periods both before and after her rejection for the job she had been detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but that, at the time of the alleged discrimination, there was no evidence of a likelihood of a recurrence and, therefore, the claimant had not shown that she was suffering from an impairment that had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The claimant appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held:
Although a person who was compulsorily admitted to hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 did not necessarily satisfy the conditions for disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the severity of the claimants' delusions was such that it constituted an impairment of the her ability to understand that was sufficiently substantial and adverse as to require her to be forcibly detained. In assessing whether the claimant's condition was likely to recur, for the purposes of determining whether her impairment had a long-term effect, the tribunal erred in failing to consider the relapses in the claimant's condition, including a further detention under the 1983 Act, after the alleged discrimination. A condition which was persistent was by definition not finite, sporadic or intermittent and was, accordingly, long-term. On all the evidence, the claimant's mental impairment did have a substantial adverse long-term effect within the meaning of section 1(1) the 1995 Act.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: James Petts (Free Representation Unit) for the claimant; Adam Ohringer (Lyons Davison, New Malden) for the respondent college.