UK Employment Insights: Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd – EAT Clarifies Definition of Disability in Relation to ADHD and Autism

Eu-Fern Lai, Trainee Solicitor

Fern works across a range of matters, including family, employment, higher education, civil claims for rape and sexual assault, and historical child sexual abuse.

A recent judgment handed down in the matter of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 (“Stedman”) has brought some much-needed clarification as to the definition of ‘disability’ relating to ADHD and autism under s6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”).

Under this section of the Act, disability is defined as a ‘physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.

The facts

Mr Stedman, the Claimant in this matter, had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (‘ASD’) as well as ADHD (‘ADHD’).

He brought claims against Haven Leisure Ltd for disability discrimination, alleging that Haven had mishandled his application, resulting in claims of direct and indirect disability discrimination on the basis of his ASD and ADHD, as well as failure to make reasonable adjustments for the same. Haven, however, disputed this, arguing that Mr Stedman’s impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and so did not meet the definition of disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

This created a preliminary issue for the courts to address: did Mr Stedman’s ASD and ADHD constitute a ‘disability’ under the meaning of s6 of the Equality Act 2010?

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal concluded that Mr Stedman was not disabled for the purposes of the Act as it regarded his difficulties with ‘normal day-to-day’ activities as no more than that experienced by someone without disabilities when engaging in activities such as forming friendships and dealing with relationship breakups. In coming to this conclusion, the Judge considered that Mr Stedman had in fact managed to complete a degree and his BTEC examinations and therefore may have exaggerated his issues with reading and writing. It was on this basis that the Tribunal determined his difficulties were ‘minor’ and did not satisfy the legal definition of a disability.

Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal

Mr Stedman proceeded to appeal the decision, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to apply the legal test correctly and had not properly assessed the difficulties that he faced as a result of his ASD and ADHD on his daily activities.

Mr Stedman’s appeal was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), and determined in particular:

• The difficulties faced by Mr Stedman needed to have “substantial (more than minor or trivial)” adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity.
• The question was not about what Mr Stedman could do versus what he could not do, whether with reference to a single activity or generally in relation to all day-to-day activities, but rather;
• The impairment that Mr Stedman faced should have been judged on the basis of what he could do had he (hypothetically) not had the impairment, versus what he could do with it.

Interestingly, the EAT in its obiter comments (‘passing’ comments that are not binding) stated that a diagnosis of ASD or ADHD should not only be regarded as an impairment under s6 of the Act, but should also be regarded as a clinician’s opinion as to the extent to which the individual’s functioning differs to the ‘norm’. A diagnosis should therefore be a factor for the Tribunal to take into account when considering whether the impairment has a ‘substantial adverse effect’.

The Stedman judgment in practice

The Stedman judgment has provided some much-needed clarity surrounding questions of the degree of impairment required for one to be regarded as having a disability under the Act.

The EAT has taken a broader view of the matter – while it evidently recognises the varying levels of difficulties that persons with ASD and/or ADHD may have, it explicitly recognises that individuals may have varying success and outcomes in managing these difficulties.

In broadening the scope of ‘disability’, the Stedman judgment is a positive step towards a more comprehensive legal understanding of such diagnoses that have historically been misunderstood.