| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
This page looks at what are 'normal day-to-day activities'. The main requirement for a stammer to be a 'disability' within the DDA 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 "2006 Guidance" means the official Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (link to EHRC website, pdf) applying to discrimination from 1st May, 2006. |
A stammer often varies depending on the situation. What is important for the DDA is whether the stammer has a 'substantial adverse effect' on one's ability to carry out 'normal day-to-day activities'. In the - perhaps unlikely - event that the stammer only has a substantial effect on activities which are not normal day-to-day, it does not fall within the DDA.
The most obvious effect on 'normal day-to-day activities' is where you actually stammer. However, there may be other relevant effects, eg where you hide your stammer or use speech techniques.
This discussion of the meaning of 'normal day-to-day activities' comes from:
The 2006 Guidance says at para D4:
"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." (Emphasis by me)
So examples given with particular relevance to speech (and they are only examples) are:
Para D5 of the 2006 Guidance reads:
"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 normal for a large number of people, and carried out by people on a daily or frequent and fairly regular basis. In this context, 'normal' should be given its ordinary, everyday meaning." (Emphasis by me)
So for example playing the piano to a high standard would not be a normal day-to-day activity, even though the person is a concert pianist so that it is what he does every day (para D8).
Para D6 of the 2006 Guidance continues:
"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 applying make-up or using hair curling equipment, and cannot therefore be said to be normal for most people. They would nevertheless be considered to be normal day-to-day activities."
This reflects the decision in Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Ekpe, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed a decision that neither putting in rollers nor applying make-up were normal day-to-day activities. The EAT said: "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 [1996] Guidance, "particular" to the individual applicant)."
It seems that if one does not do activities due to one's disability (eg if one avoids phone calls because of a stammer), they can still count as 'normal day-to-day activities'. Accordingly the impairment of ability to do them is relevant to whether one has a disability. See Hiding the stammer: Avoiding situations, and in particular the EAT decision in Goodwin v Patent Office.
The 2006 EAT decision in Vance v Royal Mail Group indicates that, apart from this, activities which the person does not do will not count as 'normal day-to-day activities' for him - but it remains to be seen whether that view is sustained by later decisions.
How far are work activities themselves be 'normal day-to-day activities'? Clearly the reasonable adjustment duty and other DDA obligations apply to any work activity, if a person's stammer has the required substantial effect in relation to 'normal day-to day activities'. What we are looking at here is 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?
Basically the principles above are applied. Work of any particular form is not a normal day-to-day activity:
"For example, carrying out delicate work with specialised tools may be a normal working activity for a watch repairer, whereas it would not be normal for a person who is employed as semi-skilled worker. The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal differences in skill or ability." (para D7)
However, many types of work involve normal day-to-day activities, for example sitting down, walking, running, verbal interaction (para D9). Accordingly, difficulty with normal day-to-day activities - eg phone calls - which are part of a person's work activities can count.
An activity can be a normal day-to-day activity even though it is being done in a night shift. In Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams (2009) the claimant's symptoms, for example difficulties walking, were particularly severe between 2am and 4am. It was held that he was disabled even if the effects of his disability were only substantial at that time. It was not a matter of exercising some special skill particular to the job. He was carrying out very ordinary physical activities at work at a time of night when there are many other people in other forms of employment doing the same thing. This point could be helpful to someone who stammers who has particular difficulty with their speech when 'at a low ebb' in the small hours.
It seems that environmental conditions at work may be taken into account towards there being a substantial adverse effect - see the example at para D10 of the 2006 Guidance on chemical fumes at work causing breathing difficulties. In the context of stammering, it may be relevant that, for example, the person has increased difficulties with phone calls because he is calling from an open plan office and can be heard by others, or perhaps because of extra stress in a work situation.
Remember that it is not only work activities that are relevant, even though it may be employment discrimination at issue. One looks at the effect of the stammer on normal day-to-day activities in the person's life generally.
'Normal day-to-day activities' in the workplace may go further than implied above. In Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) a high pressure exam for promotion was held to be a normal day-to-day activity. The court there said it was bound by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision of Chacón Navas (2006) which focusses on whether the impairment hinders participation in professional life. On this basis, perhaps even presentations, interviews, oral assessments etc should be seen as 'normal day-to day activities'. The ECJ said a 'disability' is a long term limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person in professional life. It was interpreting the Framework Employment Directive which binds the UK in relation to disability discrimination in employment.
It remains to be seen how far, following Paterson and Chacón Navas, future cases will hold that effects on work-related activities generally are taken into account in determining whether a person has a disability. Apart from the previous paragraph, the summary above is based on current published guidance on normal day-to-day activities, which predates these the Paterson case. The subsequent case of Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams (2009) has drawn a distinction between specialist skills such as silversmithing which it considered were outside Chacón Navas (as well as excluded under the UK Guidance) and activities which are more common across different jobs such as night-working, which should be counted as a normal day-to-day activity. The extent of Chacón Navas is ultimately a matter for the European Court, but it seems to me consistent with the EAT's distinction that limitation on ability to give presentations, do interviews, or take work-related oral exams could be seen as a disability; since these activities are common across many jobs.
As with work activities generally, the reasonable adjustment duty and other DDA obligations can apply to work-related presentations if a person's stammer has the required substantial effect in relation to 'normal day-to day activities'. Again, what we are looking at here is 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 presentations be taken into account? In other words, how far is speaking to an audience a 'normal day-to day activity'?
As discussed under the previous heading, in Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) a high pressure exam for promotion was held to be a normal day-to-day activity. The court there said it was bound by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision of Chacón Navas (2006), which focussed on whether the impairment hinders participation in professional life. On this basis it may well be that presentations in a work context should be seen as 'normal day-to day activities'. because problems giving them can hinder participation in professional life. This could apply to presentations as part of a recruitment or promotion process as in the Paterson case, but also apply to presentations which are part of the job. However the position is not yet clear, and we will need to see how future court decisions go.
It is probably less important but still relevant to consider whether presentations fall within the existing (non-binding) 2006 Guidance, which was developed before the two court decisions above. Presentations do seem to be more frequent nowadays, in school as well as work. They may well be normal for a large number of people. There is the issue whether they are activities that people do on a frequent and fairly regular basis. However even under the 2006 Guidance it does seem a distinct possibility that at least some presentations may be treated as normal day-to-day activities. Under the previous 1996 Guidance, speaking to an audience was not seen as 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 has changed in the 2006 Guidance. Para D25(1) now says 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 very much leaves open that it might be a substantial effect (on normal day-to-day activities - see para D15) where a person has problems speaking in front of an audience due to an impairment such as a stammer. What may be most important in future court decisons though is not the 2006 Guidance, but pressure for presentations to be included as 'normal day-to-day activities' because they affect participation in professional life, under the Chacón Navas and Paterson cases.
Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
© Allan Tyrer 1999-2009
Last updated 21st June, 2009
Is the stammer a disability?
Disability? - FAQ
Definition
'Impairment'
'Substantial effect'
'Normal day-to-day'
Hiding the stammer
Therapy
Longer-term
Old Green Card
Any stammer covered?
2006 Guidance
