Follow us

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 photo

Samantha Brown

Managing Partner of EPI (West), London

Samantha Brown
Steve Bell photo

Steve Bell

Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne

Steve Bell
Emma Rohsler photo

Emma Rohsler

Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris

Emma Rohsler
Andrew Taggart photo

Andrew Taggart

Partner, London

Andrew Taggart
Fatim Jumabhoy photo

Fatim Jumabhoy

Managing Partner, Singapore, Singapore

Fatim Jumabhoy
Barbara Roth photo

Barbara Roth

Partner, New York

Barbara Roth