Mart v Assessment Services Inc appears to be the first appellate court case to consider the interpretation of  Schedule 1 para 5(3) of the Equality Act 2010, that in determining whether there is a substantial adverse effect on the ability of a person to carry out normal day-to-day activities, then where eyesight is concerned, the extent that the person’s impairment is correctable by spectacles or contact lenses can be taken into account, i.e. the impairment has to be judged with the corrective measure in place. In this case, the EAT agreed with the ET that M was not a disabled person because her diplopia was corrected by wearing a contact lens in her left eye which resolved her symptoms of double vision. Whether an impairment is correctable is a practical issue. There was no dispute that the lens corrected the double vision problem, and although there was some peripheral vision loss, there was no indication that the side effects were such as to make the use of a lens unacceptable or unworkable. 

The updates are kindly provided by Simons Muirhead & Burton Law firm

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and help judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.