Overview of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (2025)
Background of the Case
In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (2025), the Claimant, Mr Stedman, had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He applied for a role as an animation host at the Respondent’s holiday park but was unsuccessful. Following this, he brought claims of disability discrimination against the Respondent.
Initial Tribunal Decision
At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether Mr Stedman’s ASD and ADHD amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). While acknowledging that the Claimant had a mental impairment, the tribunal found that it did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out daily activities. As a result, he was not considered disabled under the EqA.
The Claimant appealed this decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) Decision
Errors in the Tribunal’s Assessment
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal, ruling that the tribunal had failed to properly apply the legal tests.
Legal Principles Highlighted by the EAT
The EAT emphasised three important points:
- Comparison should be made between how the claimant functions with the impairment and how they would hypothetically be without it.
- The impairment only needs to have a substantial adverse effect on one daily activity, not all.
- The tribunal should not offset strengths in some activities against weaknesses in others.
Importance of Clinical Diagnosis
The EAT also noted that a diagnosis of ADHD or ASD is itself a recognition that the individual’s functioning is significantly different from the norm. A tribunal must therefore treat a clinical diagnosis as strong evidence of impairment and its impact.
The case has been remitted back to a fresh tribunal to reassess whether the Claimant meets the definition of disability under the EqA.
Understanding Disability Under the Equality Act 2010
Definition of Disability in Section 6 EqA
The EqA defines disability as:
“A physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
What Counts as a “Substantial Adverse Effect”?
“Substantial” means more than minor or trivial. The law requires an assessment of the real-world impact of an impairment, not just a medical label.
Daily Activities and Disability Assessment
A person may cope well in some areas but still face significant struggles in others. Being able to perform one activity should not cancel out difficulties in another.
Implications for Employers and Employees
Taking Neurodiversity Seriously in the Workplace
Employers must not dismiss or downplay a diagnosis of neurodiversity. Internal achievements or apparent work performance should not override medical evidence.
Supporting Employees Awaiting a Diagnosis
Many employees face long delays in obtaining a formal diagnosis of ADHD or autism. Employers should also take seriously the needs of those with suspected neurodivergent traits.
Creating an Inclusive Workplace Culture
An open, supportive culture encourages employees to disclose their conditions and enables employers to provide tailored support.
Key Takeaways from Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd
A diagnosis of ASD or ADHD should be treated as strong evidence of impairment.
Disability assessments should focus on how impairments affect daily life, not how well someone compensates in certain tasks.
Employers should prioritise inclusive practices and support employees whether or not they have a confirmed diagnosis.
How We Can Help
If you are an employer or employee seeking advice on disability in the workplace or other employment law matters, please contact our Employment Law team. We are here to help.
We publish blogs and social media posts to give a general overview of legal and commercial issues, relevant at the time of publication, which we hope you will find interesting. Please note that legal rules often change depending on the specific facts of a situation. The law also changes over time following changes in legislation or new court cases. We do not actively update our blogs or posts once they are published to reflect changes in the law.
As such, our blogs and posts are not intended to advise you on the law and must not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require advice on a particular issue then please contact us and we will be pleased to help.