Case Law Update: Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025]

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rules that the fact diagnostic criteria for Autism and ADHD are met will be highly relevant to whether or not the legal test for disability under the Equality Act 2010 is met – Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) have recently reminded practitioners of the correct test to apply when considering whether an impairment has a substantial adverse effect to meet the definition of a disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010, whilst also providing commentary on what impact a diagnosis of ADHD and Autism may have on this assessment of substantial adverse effect. In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82, the Claimant, who had been diagnosed with both ADHD and Autism, applied for the position of an Animation Host with the Respondent, but he was unsuccessful in his application. He pursued various complaints of disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal arising from the Respondent’s handling of his application.

The Claimant had recorded within his evidence that he struggled with concentration, difficulties with using public transport and difficulties with social communication and interaction, amongst other things. The Claimant also had reports confirming diagnoses for both impairments.

Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal held that his conditions did not meet the definition of a disability pursuant to section 6 Equality Act 2010. Although it held that the Claimant did have ‘some difficulties’ with social communication and interaction, it weighed up what he was able to do, such as perform in public, against what he could not do to find the impairments were not substantial on his day-to-day activities.

The EAT accepted that the Employment Tribunal had made several errors in its reasoning that the Claimant was not disabled, particularly due to the way in which it made a comparative exercise between the Claimant’s ability to carry out one day-to-day activity against another activity, and by comparing the Claimant’s abilities to non-disabled persons.

The EAT acknowledged that, in order to receive a diagnosis of either of these conditions, the person will have to have been assessed as having difficulties with, for example, social communication and integration. The EAT went on to say that, whilst it would be wrong for a Tribunal to find that either of these impairments has a substantial effect just because of the fact of a diagnosis, it would also be wrong to ignore it completely in the Tribunal’s considerations on whether the impairment has a substantial adverse effect, particularly where there is no reason to doubt the reliability of that clinical judgment.

In view of the errors made, the EAT remitted the case back to a newly constituted Employment Tribunal for the matter to be considered again.

The case is a helpful reminder to practitioners that, in determining whether someone is disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010, the correct reference is not between the Claimant and another person without their condition(s), but by reference to what the Claimant cannot do, or what they can do but with difficulty, in comparison to the Claimant hypothetically without the impairment.

This case is also more than just a useful reminder about the correct comparative test to be applied when determining whether someone’s impairment has a substantial impact on them, because the EAT also provided some helpful commentary around the specific conditions of ADHD and Autism.

Whilst this case does not give ADHD or Autism the status of ‘deemed disability’ (conditions which automatically satisfy the definition of a disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010), it is worth bearing in mind these comments when faced with a diagnosis of either condition and compelling medical evidence in deciding whether to contest that a person with either ADHD or Autism is not disabled.