The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the "effect" of an employee's impairment cannot be classed as a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) based on how their employer reacts to it. In this case, the claimant had argued that her minor visual impediment had the "substantial adverse effect" on her career progression within the police force, and that this in turn had an effect on her "normal day-to-day activity" under the DDA. After hearing evidence, a tribunal concluded that the claimant's impairment could be classed as a disability under the DDA. The EAT disagreed and ruled that career progression was not a "normal day-to-day activity" and the rejection of the claimant's application was not an "effect" of her impairment. The EAT upheld the appeal and declared that the claimant was not a disabled person under the DDA.

Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police v Cumming