Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: May 31, 2019
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 2 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The Equality Act 2010 specifically excludes from definition of disability impairment of vision which are correctable by spectacles, contact lenses or by other ways which may be prescribed.
If an employee has poor vision which can be corrected by wearing glasses or contact lenses, this employee cannot argue the poor vision amounts to disability. In Mart v Assessment Services Inc the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a whether side effects of wearing contact lenses may constitute a disability.
In this case Mrs Mart had double vision and was prescribed special contact lenses. The lens she had to wear corrected and improved her vision but ‘blacked out’ her eye, so that, it was argued, she suffered disfigurement and was therefore disabled.
Disfigurement can amount to disability, but the Tribunals did not accept that Mrs Mart was disabled. Correctable vision impairment is specifically excluded and the Equality Act 2010 makes no qualification that the side effects of the correction, the ‘cost of correction’, are to be taken into consideration.
However, this precedent cannot be relied on so that to exclude all impediments of corrective treatments. Each case will be fact sensitive and all individual circumstances will have to be taken into account.