0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

type 2 diabetes ruled not to be a disability

20 March 2015

In Metroline Travel Ltd v S, the EAT has ruled that diet controlled type 2 diabetes does not necessarily constitute a ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010 (Act).

S avoided sugary drinks to control his type 2 diabetes. An employment tribunal decided that the condition amounted to a disability. Metroline appealed, and the EAT disagreed with the tribunal. It ruled that the abstention from sugary drinks was not sufficient to constitute a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, which is a crucial aspect of the statutory definition of ‘disability’.

This decision clarifies that employees with diet controlled conditions including type 2 diabetes, and by extension those with nut allergies and other such intolerances, are unlikely to succeed in establishing that they are disabled within the meaning of the Act. It is a common misconception that diabetic employees (both type 1 and type 2) are necessarily disabled – the matter is one of fact and degree.

related opinions

Anti-social media - but when is it work related?

As the use of social media continues to increase, its overlap with working life is becoming more and more prevalent.

View blog

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up