These pages do not apply outside Great Britain.
This page looks at what are 'normal day-to-day activities'. This phrase is much wider that you'd expect. It is relevant because the main requirement for a stammer to be a 'disability' within the Equality Act 2010 is that it must have a 'substantial adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'. A separate page looks at what is a 'substantial effect'.
The main precondition for a stammer to be a 'disability' within the Equality Act is that it must have a substantial adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out 'normal day-to-day activities'. Remember that 'normal day-to-day activities' is only relevant to the definition of 'disability': if you have a 'disability' as defined, then your rights - for example to reasonable adjustments - extend to all recruitment and work activities, education, provision of services etc, whether or not these are 'normal day-to-day' (see below Equality Act obligations are not limited to 'normal day-to-day activities).
Remember that one does not look across the range of activities and compare what a person can and cannot do. The focus is on what activities the person cannot do, or has difficulty with (see separate page on Substantial effect).s, whether outside work or in work, even though the claim is for employment discrimination.
Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007, Employment Appeal Tribunal
A high pressure written exam for promotion was held to be a normal day-to-day activity. The claimant's dyslexia was held to be a disability, despite the high quality of written work he had produced as a chief inspector.
Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams 2009, Employment Appeal Tribunal
Ordinary physical activities during a night shift were held to be normal day-to-day activities. The claimant had ME, and had particular difficulties in the nighttime.
Aderemi v London and Southeastern Railway, 2012, Employment Appeal Tribunal
A station assistant had to stand for long periods, for example at the ticket gates. This was held to be a normal day-to-day activity.
Banaszczyk v Booker, 2016, Employment Appeal Tribunal
The EAT held that lifting weights in a warehouse up to 25kg was a normal day to day activity, even where the employer expected staff to do it at a particular speed (pick rate).
In a sense 'no', because 'normal day-to-day activties' is very wide, wider than one would expect from the words. So it does not restrict the definition of 'disability' all that much. In a way the most important thing is to remember how wide the concept is.
The concept of 'normal day-to-day activities' is important of course in that a claimant must show there is a substantial effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Employers have tried, and doubtless will continue to try, to use it to argue that a claimant does not have a disability, including that a particular activity is not normal day-to-day. However, at appeal level the employers' arguments have tended to be unsuccessful - and employment tribunals should of course follow what appeal cases have decided.
In practice there will nearly always be some effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, especially in the case of stammering. The main argument, if there is one, is likely to be whether the effect is substantial, meaning 'more than minor or trivial'.
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ekpe, 2001, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The EAT said that only in the most exceptional case would an impairment in one of the listed capabilities under DDA 1995 not have some effect on normal day-to-day activities. The listed capabilities included 'speech'. The tribunal must then decide whether the effect is 'substantial'.
See further Ekpe: 'Normal day-to-day' activities are nearly always affected, in practice. This has also been cited in later EAT decisions.
A stammer often varies depending on the situation. However, in most (possibly all) cases the stammer is likely to have a substantial effect in at least some normal day-to-day activities, eg ordering a coffee, phone calls. Remember that one does not look across the range of activities and compare what a person can and cannot do. Rather the focus is on what the person cannot do, or has difficulties with (see Substantial effect).
Accordingly a lot of the discussion on this page on whether something is or isn't a 'normal day-to-day activity' will often not be important. As part of the argument that one's stammer is a 'disability', it may be helpful to point out, for example, that a job interview, or making a presentiation, should be a normal day-to-day activityin the context of an employment claim, and you have particular difficulties there (below: Recruitment and Promotion). However, there are likely to be substantial effects anyway in more normal everyday activities.
In looking at whether there is a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities, remember that an overt stammer is not the only possible effect. There may be other relevant effects, eg where you hide your stammer, avoid situations, or use speech techniques.
European Union (EU) cases have said basically that a disability is a long term impairment which, in interaction with other barriers, hinders full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with others - see the Ring case below.
EU law applies particularly to employment claims. In an employment claim therefore, the EU case law can be very helpful in arguing that a work activity is 'normal day-to-day'. EU case law was used by the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Paterson in 2007 to hold that taking a high level promotion exam was a normal day-day-activity. It said the court should "[give] a meaning to day-to-day activities which encompasses the activities which are relevant to participation in professional life." Later, the EAT in Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams (2009) and subsequent cases have interpreted EU case law as making activities 'normal day-to-day' if they are found in a range of different work situations, for example working at night, or lifting heavy weights up to 20kg in Banaszczyk v Booker (2016). In the latter case the EAT also left open that EU law may go further and require even specialist activities not found in a range of different work situations (eg activities of a silversmith or concert pianist) to be treated as 'normal day-to-day'. Also in Sobhi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis a one-off job application was considered a normal day-to-day activity. For more on these points, see particularly below Recruitment and promotion and At work.
However, this exceptionally wide meaning may not apply for a non-employment claim falling outside the scope of EU law, for example a claim against a service provider. The EAT in Banaszczyk v Booker suggested that the unusually wide meaning of 'normal day-to-day activity' may be limited to claims relating to employment or occupation within the scope of the Framework Employment Directive. Here the not quite so wide, more commonsense definition in the 2011 official guidance (quoted below) of what is a normal day-to-day activity is more likely to apply.
Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab, 2013, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Modifying the previous definition it gave in Chacón Navas (2006), the European court said a disability is "...a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers and the limitation is a long-term one...."
The CJEU's decision in Chacón Navas (2006) similarly saw a disability as something which "hinders participation in professional life".
In the light of the EU case law above, the courts have taken a broad approach to this in employment claims:
Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
A high pressure written exam for promotion was held to be a normal day-to-day activity. The claimant had dyslexia.
The EAT said: 'In our view carrying out an assessment or examination is properly to be described as a normal day to day activity. Moreover, as we have said, in our view the act of reading and comprehension is itself a normal day-to-day activity...'
If taking an exam is a 'day-to-day' activity, it is a wide concept indeed. In a 2013 case, the EAT went even further to hold that a one-off job application could be a normal day-to-day activity:
Sobhi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2013, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The EAT held that applying to become a police constable was a 'normal day-to-day activity'in the light of EU law. A memory impairment which led to the claimant not disclosing a previous conviction had a long-term adverse effect on such an application, and was a 'disability' within DDA 1995.
There is an issue whether this case is consistent with a previous EAT case, and if not which should prevail. See below Specific job applications as a normal day-to-day activity?
The 2011 Guidance takes a somewhat more limited approach than cases such as Paterson and Sobhi cases. In non-employment cases (where EU law is not there to require the courts to override the guidance) the concept of 'normal day-to-day activity' in the guidance is more likely to apply (Banaszczyk v Booker, 2016). Even so, the guidance is not binding on the courts (courts are required to take it into account), unlike appeal decisions which bind the lower courts.
The 2011 Guidance says:
"In general, day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities. Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities, and study and education-related activities, such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents, and keeping to a timetable or a shift pattern."
2011 Guidance, para D3
So examples given with particular relevance to speech (and they are only examples) are:
Note that in employment claims the requirement that an activity be 'normal' may have little or no meaning as regards work-related activities, in the light of EU law: see below Recruitment and promotion and At work.
'Normal' has been given a wide meaning, even for non-employment claims. It is not a question of whether most people do the activity. Rather 'normal' covers things which are not abnormal or unusual. It can include both work and non-work activities.
Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Ekpe 2001, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
"The antithesis for the purposes of the Act is between that which is 'normal' and that which is 'abnormal' or 'unusual' as a regular activity, judged by an objective population standard ..... what is 'normal' [may] best be understood by defining it as anything which is not abnormal or unusual (or, in the words of the  Guidance, "particular" to the individual applicant)."
In this case the EAT reversed a decision that putting rollers in one's hair and applying make-up were not normal day-to-day activities.
'Normal' means normal for people generally, not just for the claimant. For example, base jumping (jumping off cliffs or structures with a parachute or wingsuit) is probably not a normal day-to-day activity even if it is normal day-to-day for a particular individual. The 2011 Guidance puts it:
D4. The term 'normal day-to-day activities' is not intended to include activities which are normal only for a particular person, or a small group of people. In deciding whether an activity is a normal day-to-day activity, account should be taken of how far it is carried out by people on a daily or frequent basis. In this context, 'normal' should be given its ordinary, everyday meaning.
D5. A normal day-to-day activity is not necessarily one that is carried out by a majority of people. For example, it is possible that some activities might be carried out only, or more predominantly, by people of a particular gender, such as breast-feeding or applying make-up, and cannot therefore be said to be normal for most people. They would nevertheless be considered to be normal day-to-day activities.
2011 Guidance, para D4 and D5.
This section focuses on activities in the job itself. There is a separate section below on Recruitment and promotion.
Following the approach of the Ekpe case (above), starting with Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams (2009) the courts have looked at whether a work activity is 'normal' in the sense that it is to be found in a range of different work situations. However, in Banaszczyk v Booker, 2016, the Employment Appeal Tribunal left open that other specialist activities, not found across a range of work situations (eg silversmithing or a concert pianist) may be included, in the light of EU law: see At work: 2011 Guidance on 'normal' versus specialised activities (below).
First though, some cases on activities found across a range of different work situations, as many activities are:
Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams 2009, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
Ordinary physical activities during a night shift were held to be normal day-to-day activities. The claimant had ME, and had particular difficulties in the nighttime. The EAT said that night shift working is common in the UK.
This was 'normal' in the sense that it was to be found in a range of different work situations. The EAT contrasted it with a "special skill case such as the silversmith or watchmaker who is limited in some activity that the use of their specialist tools particularly requires". There the specialist activity would not be a 'normal day-to-day activity'.
Aderemi v London and Southeastern Railway, 2012, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
A station assistant had to stand for long periods, for example at the ticket gates. He developed a back problem so he was unable to do this. The EAT held it was a normal day-to-day activity. It was not difficult to think of very many jobs which would require the person to be on one's feet for lengthy periods of time.
Banaszczyk v Booker, 2016, Employment Appeal Tribunal
The EAT held that lifting weights in a warehouse up to 25kg was a normal day to day activity, even where the employer expected staff to do it at a particular speed (pick rate). The activity was the lifting rather than the pick rate. The EAT said: '...in the context of work, a normal day-to-day activity: no-one with any knowledge of modern UK life working life could doubt that large numbers of people are employed to work lifting and moving cases of up to 25kg across a range of occupations, including in particular occupations concerned with warehousing and distribution.'
EU law (above) is helpful in broadening the scope of 'normal day-to-day activity' in the case of employment claims. It is unclear whether on non-employment claims the meaning of normal day-to-day activity here would go quite as far. For example in Banaszczyk v Booker the court used EU law to overrule what Britain's 2011 official guidance said about lifting heavy weights not being a normal day to day activity.
The 2011 guidance says that specialised activities such as work with highly specialised tools (eg a silversmith or watchmaker) or playing a sport or instrument to a high standard is not a normal day-to-day activity. However it is unclear whether this remains correct in the light of EU law (above). The court in Banaszczyk v Booker expressed some doubt as to whether the 2011 guidance on this remains entirely correct. The following is is what the guidance says, but those reservations must be borne in mind:
D8. Where activities are themselves highly specialised or involve highly specialised levels of attainment, they would not be regarded as normal day-to-day activities for most people. In some instances work-related activities are so highly specialised that they would not be regarded as normal day-to-day activities....
[Here the Guidance gives the example of a watch repairer carriying out delicate work with highly specialised tools]
D9. The same is true of other specialised activities such as playing a musical instrument to a high standard of achievement; taking part in activities where very specific skills or level of ability are required; or playing a particular sport to a high level of ability, such as would be required for a professional footballer or athlete. Where activities involve highly specialised skills or levels of attainment, they would not be regarded as normal day-to-day activities for most people....
[Here the Guidance gives the example of a woman who plays the piano to a high standard, and often takes part in public performances. It says that playing the piano to such a specialised level would not be normal for most people.]
D10. However, many types of specialised work-related or other activities may still involve normal day-to-day activities which can be adversely affected by an impairment. For example they may involve normal activities such as: sitting down, standing up, walking, running, verbal interaction, writing, driving; using everyday objects such as a computer keyboard or a mobile phone, and lifting, or carrying everyday objects, such as a vacuum cleaner...
[Here the Guidance gives the example of watch repairer whose impairment means he has difficulty preparing invoices and counting and recording daily takings. These count as normal day-to-day activities, even though the delicate work on watches does not.]
2011 Guidance, para D8 - D10.
Para D10 of the 2011 Guidance mentions 'verbal interaction' at work as an example of a normal day-to-day activity (above: At work: 2011 Guidance on 'normal' versus specialised activities).
Another example given by the 2011 Guidance is 'dealing with customers and suppliers in person and by telephone' in a shop:
A person works in a small retail store. His duties include maintaining stock in a stock room, dealing with customers and suppliers in person and by telephone, and closing the store at the end of the day. Each of these elements of the job would be regarded as a normal day-to-day activity, which could be adversely affected by an impairment.
2011 Guidance, para D3.
Here are some further stammering examples (not necessarily from the Guidance) of what seem likely to be normal day-to-day activities.
Phone calls generally.
Where a person who stammers in an open plan office has increased difficulties with phone calls because he can be heard by others.
Where a particular person finds their stammer to be more severe in an office, or in a customer-facing situation.
Giving presentations, or taking part in meetings.
Giving presentations might seem an odd 'normal day-to-day activity'. However it is common to many jobs, and at least in employment claims its inclusion would be supported by Chacón Navas. See also below A note on public speaking.
Where background noise makes speech more difficult.
Para D20 of the 2011 Guidance gives an example on backgound noise being taken into accout in assessing effects of tinnitus.
If a person has particular difficulty with their speech when 'at a low ebb' in the small hours on a night shift, or when their body clock is adjusting between day and night shifts (experiencing a 'jet lag' kind of effect).
Night shift working was considered to be a normal day-to-day activity in Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams.
These seem to be normal day-to-day activities in any event. However, see below Keeping description of the activity fairly general for points which can bolster an argument that an activity with unusual aspects is actually a normal day-to-day activity.
There is a separate section below on Recruitment and promotion.
Previous 1996 Guidance (pre-dating the 2006 and 2011 Guidance) said that speaking to an audience was not a normal day-to-day activity. Para C19(i) said that it would not be reasonable to regard as having a substantial adverse effect: "inability to speak in front of an audience."
This bullet point example was changed in the 2006 Guidance, and remains in the Appendix of the 2011 Guidance, to say that it would not be reasonable to regard as having a substantial effect: "inability to speak in front of an audience simply as a result of nervousness." This implies that speaking to an audience is at least sometimes a 'normal day-to-day activity'.
As described on this page, there seems to be a strong argument now that presentations both in work and in the course of recruitment or promotion can be normal day-to-day activities, particularly on employment claims given that EU law applies there.
Also Prof. Lisa Waddington commented in a paper in 2007 that stuttering leading to problems with making presentations may meet the ECJ test of disability in Chacón Navas but not the UK test (as then understood, before the Paterson case). Reference: Lisa Waddington, 'Case C-13/05, Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA' (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review pp. 487-499.
There is a strong argument that job interviews are normal day-to-day activities in the case of an employment claim. The same applies to giving a presentation, or probably other parts of a recruitment or promotion process which involve speech. (For non-employment claims, such as a claim against a service provider, a job interview may not be a normal day-to-day activity because EU law does not apply.)
Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
A high pressure written exam for promotion was held to be a normal day-to-day activity. The claimant had dyslexia, and was held to have a disability, despite the high quality of written work he had produced as a chief inspector.
The EAT would have reached that conclusion under British law alone. But the EAT said it was in any event bound to that conclusion by the European Court decision in Chacón Navas (2006), which focusses on whether the impairment hinders participation in professional life. The EAT said: "We must read s1 [of the DDA] in a way which gives effect to EU law. We think it can be readily done, simply by giving a meaning to day-to-day activities which encompasses the activities which are relevant to participation in professional life. Appropriate measures must be taken to enable a worker to advance in his or her employment. Since the effect of the disability may adversely affect promotion prospects, then it must be said to hinder participation in professional life."
The European definition of disability was modified in Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (2013). However, the modified definition retains the emphasis on participation in professional life. Accordingly the decision in Paterson is still valid. Indeed, the Paterson case was applied and re-affirmed in the light of the Ring case in Sobhi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2013.
The Paterson case talked about promotion. However, applying Ring and the Chacón Navas case, the same logic applies to recruitment, and to activities in the job itself (above At Work). Job interviews for example are very relevant to participation in professional life, probably more so than high pressure written exams.
Examples of activities that seem likely to be normal day-to-day activities, on the basis of Paterson, Ring and Chacón Navas:
A presentation as part of a recruitment or promotion process
As mentioned above in At work: Some examples relevant to stammering, other presentations also seem likely to be normal day-to-day activities. See also above A note on public speaking.
Oral assessents in a recruitment or promotion process
Generally it should not really matter that eg a job interview is likely to be a normal day-to-day activity. The stammer will probably have substantial effects on other more normal day-to-day activities anyway. Even so, the job interview argument may be useful as part of the argument in an employment claim that the stammer is a disability. After all, it is a situation where the employer will often have seen the stammer. If speech is difficult in a job interview, this may in practice help cut through a legal argument which might otherwise get bogged down in what effects there are in other more normal activities. Having said that, since there is no case law directly on job interviews (so far as I know), the employer may try to argue a job interview is not a 'normal day-to-day activity', despite the strength of the legal argument based on Paterson. I find it difficult to see though how such an argument by the employer would succeed.
It may be particularly difficult for an employer to argue there is no disability if there are indications that it saw the job applicant's speech difficulties at the interview as a problem, given that a job interview is likely to be a normal day-to-day activity.
A claimant might argue additionally that even if the stammer does not meet the definition of 'disability', there is a perceived disability.
In Sobhi (2013) the EAT held that a one-off application to become a police constable could be a normal day-to-day activity. The EAT commented that apart from EU law, one might distinguish this from exams for promotion as discussed in the Paterson case above, as these exams would be intermittent rather than one-off. The EAT nevertheless held that because of EU law, the job application should be seen as a normal day-to-day activity:
Sobhi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2013, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The EAT held that applying to become a police constable was a 'normal day-to-day activity' in the light of EU law. A memory impairment which led to the claimant not disclosing a previous conviction had a long-term adverse effect on such an application, and was a 'disability' within DDA 1995.
There is an issue whether that case is consistent with the following one, and if not which should prevail:
Lothian and Borders Police v Cummings (link to bailii.org), 2009, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
Failure to progress professionally was held not to be a relevant adverse effect. A special constable had impaired vision in one eye, and so did not meet the requirements to progress to being a special constable. This was not in itself a relevant adverse effect.
There is a short summary of the case on personneltoday.com.
In any event, the Lothian Police v Cummings case does not affect the discussion on this page about common recruitment activities such as job interviews and presentations being normal day-to-day activities.
How far does the Sobhi case go? Does it mean that if an employer turns a person down for a job because of a long-term impairment, then the impairment does have the required adverse effect on ability to apply for a job? This would greatly extend the meaning of 'disability'. That interpretation is probably inconsistent with Lothian and Borders v Cummings, but may be supported by the EU court decision in Ring which looks to the 'social model' of disability, including the importance of barriers created by people's attitudes. Further, if the EU Court of Justice considered the facts of Lothian and Borders v Cummings, it seems to me quite possible they would see it as involving a 'disability'.
How 'normal' or 'day-to-day' an activity is can depend on how one describes it. There are cases which suggest that one should take a high level, general description, which makes it easier for the activity to be 'normal day-to-day'.
An employer may try to argue that a work activity is not 'normal day-to-day' by defining it in too limited a way. However, there is case law saying that one should take a more general description of the activity:
Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway, December 2012, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The claimant had back problems. His job involved standing for long periods at station ticket gates. The employer argued that the claimant here had to maintain a visible presence which was a particular feature of his, although not of many jobs. The EAT said this was too restricted a definition of the activity. Redefining the activity more generally as being on one's feet in a job for lengthy periods of time, it was not difficult to think of very many jobs which would fit that description. This was a normal day-to-day activity.
The EAT said: "A problem with definition is that it can be so individual to the person in the job concerned, that it then becomes trite that it is not normal because quite simply, no-one else does precisely the job or activity that the Claimant in question does. A high-level approach needs to be taken to the relevant lack of ability."
The EAT took the example of a 2009 case involving a bus driver who developed back problems, Bourne v ECT Bus (link to bailii.org). There the claim failed essentially because the effects were not long-term. However, the EAT in Bourne had been disinclined to see 'Not being able to fully carry out her job of driving a bus for an eight-hour shift' as a normal day-to-day activity The EAT in Aderemi made no comment on whether that was correct (and noted it was obiter, ie not essential to the Bourne decision). However, the EAT commented that such a specifically described task was less likely to be 'normal' than if the effect on normal day-to-day activity was considered in respect of the normal day-to-day activity of sitting, whether to drive or to do other activities. A high-level approach was needed.
See further Aderemi: Should not define activities in too restricted a way.
How might this apply to stammering?
A person who stammers works as a personal shopper in a department store, helping customers to shop, giving advice and suggestions. She does so with a stammer (but has excellent communication skills). The employer argues that helping clients with their shopping, as a personal shopper, is not a normal day-to-day activity, as it is not found across a range of different work situations. Therefore, it argues, her level of dysfluency in the job is not relevant to whether the stammer is a disability. The employee could argue that even if the activity defined in that way is not common enough, the descripton proposed by the employer is too limited. It should perhaps be 'speaking face-to-face with clients or customers', or 'dealing with clients or customers', or possibly even just 'verbal interaction' (mentioned in para D10 of the 2011 guidance), which would all be normal day-to-day activites.
Say there is a target for how many customers one should deal with in a particular time, or some other time constraint. Does this mean it is no longer a normal day-to-day activity? One would expect this does not make a difference, and the EAT has indeed confirmed that it should not not alter that fact something is a normal day-to-day activity:
Banaszczyk v Booker, 2016, Employment Appeal Tribunal (also summarised above)
The EAT held that lifting weights in a warehouse up to 25kg was a normal day to day activity, even where the employer expected staff to do it at a particular speed (pick rate). The activity was the lifting rather than the pick rate. The activity itself should not be confused with a particular requirement of an employer as to the speed with which the activity is performed. The EAT said: "It is to my mind essential, if disability law is to be applied correctly, to define the relevant activity of working or professional life broadly: care should be taken before including in the definition the very feature which constitutes a barrier to the disabled individual's participation in that activity. In this case the activity was the lifting and movement of goods manually; the employer's 'pick rate' was not the activity, but a particular requirement of the employer as to the manner and speed of performance."
Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast 2001, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The claimant's asthma appeared particularly at work where he was subjected to chemical fumes. The employment tribunal considered that the work situation was a 'normal day-to-day activity', so did not take it into account and held he did not have a 'disability'. The EAT disagreed, saying the symptoms at work should be taken into account even though they were triggered by the exceptional environment there.
The EAT distinguished the activities themselves from the 'environment' in which they are carried out. Accordingly the claimant's activities in the workplace (eg driving a forklift) could be a normal day-to-day activity even though they were carried out in an unusal environment which caused his asthma.
This case is the basis of the example at para D21 of the 2011 Guidance.
Similarly with stammering, the environment may make speech more difficult. The activity itself may just be having a conversation or making a phone call (normal day-to-day activities), but the environment may be less usual and may cause particular speech problems.
Often the activities are likely to be 'normal day-to-day' in any event, even if one sees the environment as part of the activity. However, the Cruikshank case can give an additional reason to counter any argument of an employer that difficulties in a particular situation are not taken into account towards the stammer being a disability.
Phone calls in an open plan office, or in a hectic atmosphere seem likely to be normal day-to-day activities anyway (see the stammering examples above). However, even if it those environments were too unusual to be 'normal', it could be argued that the normal day-to-day activity is simply making phone calls, and that the environment's effect on the person's ability to do this must be taken into account under Cruickshank.
For more, see 'Substantial effect' - overt stammering: Variability.
It seems that if one avoids activities because of one's disability (eg avoiding phone calls because of a stammer), they can still be 'normal day-to-day activities'. Accordingly the impairment of ability to do them is relevant towards having a disability. See Hiding the stammer: Avoiding situations, and in particular the EAT decision in Goodwin v Patent Office.
A person avoids going to parties because of their stammer. This will be relevant towards their stammer being a disability.
See Hiding the stammer: Avoiding situations.
What about activities one is not avoiding due to the disability, but just doesn't do anyway? The 2006 EAT decision in Vance v Royal Mail Group indicates that these will not count as 'normal day-to-day activities'. However the decision has been criticised by commentators, and it remains to be seen whether that view is supported by future decisions.
Much of this page discusses how far work-related activities are 'normal day-to-day activities. But remember that this is only relevant for the definition of 'disability'. The reasonable adjustment duty and other Equality Act obligations apply to any work activity, whether or not it is 'normal day-to-day'.
A person has a disablity as defined in the Equality Act - their impairment has a substantial effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities (which may be in work or outside it). The person's job includes activities which are so specialist that they are not 'normal day-to-day activities'. Even so, the reasonable adjustment duty and other Equality Act obligations will apply also to the specialist work.
So in discussing what work-related activities are normal day-to-day activities, we are looking at a relatively limited question: if a stammer does not have sufficient effect (including hidden effects) in relation to other normal day-to day activities, how far can its effect in relation to work activities be taken into account?
Homepage | Equality Act in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
© Allan Tyrer 1999-2016
Last updated 11th May, 2016