The definition of what counts as a disability in discrimination cases has been widened by a landmark ruling in the House of Lords.

The ruling, which could have far-ranging implications for future cases, concerned a case brought by Elizabeth Boyle against her former employer SCA Packaging. Mrs Boyle developed vocal nodules, a condition which she managed through a strictly-maintained regime which included restricting the volume at which she spoke to protect her vocal chords from further damage.

She began her legal action nine years ago, after her employers removed some partitions near her desk against her wishes and against the advice of her doctor. The removal of the partitions forced her to speak more loudly than before, thereby making her condition more likely to return.

Mrs Boyle brought a claim of disability discrimination against her employer. During the case, the company argued that Mrs Boyle did not have a disability as her condition no longer had an adverse effect on her life.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the sufferer’s normal, day-to-day activities. If the adverse effect of the impairment can be alleviated by treatment or other measures, the condition is still deemed to be a disability if the adverse effect would return if the treatment ceased.

In Mrs Boyle’s case, however, the situation was slightly different. Although she was not suffering from her condition at the time her employer removed the partition, she had suffered from the condition previously, and it was only her adherence to her voice management programme that stopped the condition from returning.

The House of Lords ruling has clarified the legal position in such cases. They found that people with a mental or physical disability which varied in severity over time should be treated as disabled if it was likely that their condition would recur in the future.

Crucially, they interpreted “likely” in this instance as meaning “could well happen”, rather than using the previous, more restrictive definition of “more likely than not”. This change of emphasis extends the scope of the term “disability”, meaning that more people will now be entitled to legal protection through the DDA.

Technorati Tags: Disability Discrimination, House of Lords