Type 2 diabetes is not necessarily a disability for employment purposes, according to the EAT. A claimant did not satisfy the definition of disability where he was able to sufficiently reduce the effects of the impairment by a coping strategy involving abstaining from sugary drinks. The EAT considered that this type of abstinence could not be regarded as a 'diet' and so did not equate to a medical treatment (which is to be ignored when assessing impairment).
Of course each case should be decided on its facts so it is possible that other employees with Type 2 diabetes (or food allergies) controlled by abstention from certain products might still qualify as disabled; there must also be scope for argument in a future case as to whether this view of what constitutes a 'diet' is correct. (Metroline Travel v Stoute)
Key contacts
Samantha Brown
Managing Partner, Employment, Pensions and Incentives, UK and EMEA, London
Steve Bell
Managing Partner, Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety, Asia and Australia, Melbourne
Emma Rohsler
Partner, Head of Employment, Pensions and Incentives, EMEA, Paris
Tim Leaver
Partner, London
Andrew Taggart
Partner, London
Fatim Jumabhoy
Partner, Head of Employment & Workplace Investigations, Asia, Singapore
Barbara Roth
Partner, New York
Christine Young
Partner, London
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.