The claimant stammered. An issue was whether his mental impairment (stress etc) was a disability. The employment tribunal held there was not enough evidence that various alleged effects of his mental impairment, including his stammering, were substantial effects on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. So he had not shown his mental impairment was a disability within the EqA.
2024, Employment Tribunal. Full decision (gov.uk), “Judgment with Reasons”.
Facts and decision
This was a preliminary hearing on whether the claimant had a disability within the Equality Act (EqA).
The claimant said he had numerous impairments, including stammering. However, in the claimant’s disability discrimination claims, he seems to have been relying on only some of these impairments, such as vertigo and stress. As regards the impairments on which he was not relying, including stammering, the tribunal said it did not consider them as such, but considered his evidence on them to the extent that it amounted to evidence about the effects of the impairments on which he did rely [§63].
The tribunal considered the claimant’s evidence on stammering in the context of whether the “stress” and “anxiety and depression” with which he had been diagnosed was a disability within the EqA [§82-91]. On stammering, the tribunal said:
87. Under the Heading Stammering in his witness statement the claimant stated that ‘Throughout my life I have learned to cope with stammering and minimise its impact. Thus, for instance, I avoid saying some words that can trigger stammering. However, sometimes usually when I am under stress and suffering anxiety my stammering gets worse and on occasion can be so bad that I am unable to produce sounds for to ten seconds.’ The claimant however did not give evidence that this was an effect that he experienced in the period from September 2022.
The date was important because the relevant period, when the disability discrimination was alleged to have taken place, was 17 January to 13 March 2023. [§3]
That evidence on stammering was only part of the evidence considered by the tribunal on effects of the claimant’s mental impairment. Overall, the tribunal decided the claimant had not established that as a result of a mental impairment there was a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Therefore, he was not disabled under the EqA by virtue of the impairment of stress/anxiety/depression. [§89]
If the tribunal was wrong and his mental condition did have a substantial effect, the tribunal said it could not conclude that any substantial adverse effect was long-term, so again it was not a disability. [§90-91]
The tribunal also found that looking at the cumulative effect of his impairments did not alter its conclusion. [§113-116]
The claimant’s vertigo was held to be a disability. However, at a later hearing his substantive disability discrimination claims on this failed.
My comments
This is barely a case on stammering, but there seemed enough for it to get a mention on this website, despite being only an employment tribunal decision.
I would say that avoiding saying certain words to avoid stammering should be seen as part of its adverse effect, rather than something that reduces its adverse effect (Hiding the stammer). This was probably not argued by the claimant. Particularly as the claimant says “for instance”, the stammer may well have had further adverse “hidden” effects, such as him avoiding “difficult” situations – but if so he evidently gave no evidence on that.
It is not clear whether the stammering here was developmental, starting as a young child, so not caused by stress as such. (Stammering/stuttering due to a psychological trauma or depression is called psychogenic stuttering.) Even if the stammer was developmental, it might be argued that it was relevant to whether the stress etc was an EqA disability because the stress exacerbated it.
It may have been important to the tribunal decision that there was no evidence of the claimant sometimes being unable to say something for ten seconds in the period when the alleged discrimination occurred. Of course, a stammer need not be that severe to have a “more than minor or trivial” effect. Also, to be a disability within the EqA, an impairment need not necessarily have the substantial effect actually at the time of the alleged discrimination (‘Disability’: longer-term variations). Even so, this decision is a reminder that the tribunal or court will be considering whether the claimant has presented enough evidence that they met the EqA definition of disability at the time of the alleged discrimination.
