The employment tribunal seems to have held the claimant’s stammer was a disability. It took into account that people with whom he was seeking to communicate could disengage.
2013? Employment Tribunal, No. 1604140/12
I haven’t seen the actual employment tribunal decision. The case is mentioned at para 2.161 of Disability: IDS Employment Law Handbook, 2023.
The employment tribunal seems to have held that the claimant’s stammer was a disability (though the book does not actually say this).
The book says the tribunal found that “his stammer adversely affected his ability to carry out normal day-to-day communication, as the people with whom he was seeking to communicate could disengage”.
The book also says he had worked at controlling his stammer, but its impact was heightened when he was under stress.
Comments
This is interesting in that the tribunal appears to have taken into account reactions of listeners in deciding that the effect of his stammer was “substantial”, ie more than minor or trivial (Substantial effect). That seems a very sensible approach. It takes two to communicate.
Also, ways in which a person “controls” their stammer may themselves conceal or be part of adverse effects: see Hiding the stammer, and Discounting speech techniques etc on the argument that one looks at the stammer as it would be without ongoing speech techniques.
