NEW EAT DECISIONS

These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). The transcripts were recently posted on the EAT website.


MORGAN v STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY
(Lindsay P., 11th December 2001)
Practical guidance from the EAT about evidence required to prove mental impairment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Very useful decision, but two points in particular warrant mention. First, Applicants are warned in clear terms that a complaint of 'stress' is not enough - the EAT sets out three methods of proving a recognised psychiatric illness, and says that a catch-all complaint of 'stress' is insufficient. Second, the EAT warns tribunals about forming an impression of the Applicant because of his conduct in the witness box (because of the catch-22 situation of tribunals penalising an inarticulate witness because he cannot explain his level of impairment properly, and penalising an articulate witness because he is thought to be too articulate to be suffering from an impairment!).


JONES & others v 3M HEALTHCARE & others
(Lindsay P., 11th December 2001)
Another chapter in the saga of whether Applicants can claim for post-termination discrimination. This conjoined appeal involved three cases of disability discrimination (including Kirker v British Sugar). The EAT held that the DDA 1995 does not permit a claim to be brought based upon allegations of discrimination occurring after dismissal. The decision is useful in that it contains a first-class summary of all the decisions on this point to date (including those under the SDA 1975 and RRA 1976), and is a concise, readable decision in an area frequently encumbered with precisely the opposite.