15 years of stammeringlaw 1999-2014
Overview Disability Discrimination Employment Services Education Business Brexit Advice More...
These pages do not apply outside Great Britain.

Hiding the stammer

The real extent of a person's stammer is often not apparent. For example, the person may avoid difficult situations, or subsitute words he cannot say, so as to sound fairly fluent. Hidden effects can be relevant towards the stammer being a disabilty under the Equality Act.

Summary

Stammering iceberg

Stammering iceberg - see below.
©iStockphoto.com/jgroup

How people hide

Many people who stammer will sometimes avoid situations, substitute words etc, to try and avoid stammering openly. Stammering is often compared to an iceberg, with much more below the surface than is visible above. See How people hide.

Types of effect

For stammering, the main requirement for it being a disability within the Equality Act is that it has a substantial adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Often a person's visible stammer will have a substantial effect in any event. However additional hidden effects of stammering can bolster the argument that the stammer is a disability. There are two different ways of analysing the hidden effects, either of which seem valid. See below Types of 'substantial ' effect.

Two alternative ways of describing hidden effect of avoiding phone calls:

Where someone avoids using the phone due to the stammer, an effect of the stammer is that the person cannot use the phone, or their use of it is restricted.
See below: Effect' as the avoidance itself.

If the person did use the phone, they would stammer a lot. How their speech would be if they did make the phone call is part of the stammer's effect on the person's ability to speak on the phone.
See below: Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance.

As regards word substitution and use of 'fillers', these legal arguments for including hidden effects are joined by another, based on EqA Schedule 1 para 5. This provision allows one to discount measures taken to correct a disability. See Word substitution (and "fillers").

Common sense

If avoidance is not given due weight in considering whether a person has a 'disability', one could have the very odd situation that a person is more likely to have a 'disability' after speech therapy than before.  After therapy he may be speaking more freely but with a more obvious stammer. See Common sense.

Knowledge of employer etc

The employer etc may have a defence if it reasonably did now know of the stammer or its effects. Knowledge of stammer - possible defence by employer etc.

2011 Guidance

"...A man has had a stammer since childhood. He does not stammer all the time, but his stammer, particularly in telephone calls, goes beyond the occasional lapses in fluency found in the speech of people who do not have the impairment. However, this effect can often be hidden by his avoidance strategies. He tries to avoid making or taking telephone calls where he believes he will stammer, or he does not speak as much during the calls. He sometimes tries to avoid stammering by substituting words, or by inserting extra words or phrases.

"In these cases there are substantial adverse effects on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day communication activities."

Para D17 of 2011 guidance. It says 'these' cases because there are two non-stammering examples before this example.

This example in para D17 of the official guidance clearly indicates that hidden elements of a stammer should be taken into account. The guidance is not binding, but tribunals must take it into account where relevant. See below for more on the 2011 guidance as regards avoidance and concealing a disability.

Cases

Shirlow v Translink, 2007, Industrial Tribunal Northern Ireland
The industrial tribunal held that the claimant's stammer was a 'disability' within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Among other things, the claimant would employ avoidance strategies by asking other people to do things for him.

 Wakefield v HM Land Registry (below), 2007, Employment Tribunal
The tribunal accepted that a stammer with covert symptoms was a 'disability'. The fact that the claimant did not fall silent or stammer audibly was no proof at all that he had conveyed the message he would like to convey. Also as regards the duty to make reasonble adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage in a job interview. Although the claimant might "get the answers out" without too much overt stammering, the meaning of the anwers was distorted and the impression of superficiality created.

How people hide

Many people who stammer use avoidance and concealment strategies to try and avoid stammering openly, at least some of the time.

Often these strategies involve the person not saying what he or she actually wants to say, and are linked with fear of how the listener will react if he stammers openly.

Part of speech and language therapy, if the person is having this, will generally be to encourage him to move away from using these strategies, so as to have greater freedom of expression.

Examples of avoidance and concealment strategies:

  • Avoiding situations in which the person finds it difficult to speak, for example avoiding phone calls, avoiding various social sitatuations, avoiding getting into a conversation
  • Changing words and phrases - scanning ahead for words on which he feels he will stammer and changing words or phrases to something he can say. A person may sound like they are 'beating round the bush', not being concise. A person may order a different drink at the bar because it's something they can say.
  • Staying quiet - eg not saying something he would like to say in a conversation
  • Saying less - eg keeping a comment short, or answering a question briefly (including perhaps a job interview question), not adding something that he would really like to
  • Inserting 'fillers' - meaningless words or phrases such as "actually", or "I mean", to help avoid stammering
  • Making excuses - eg 'I don't know', or 'I can't remember' where in fact they do know but can't say it.

There are some concrete examples in the cases below.

'Covert stammering'

Probably most people who use avoidance and concealment still stammer overtly to a significant extent.

In some people, however, avoidance and concealment strategies give rise to a 'covert stammer', also known as 'interiorised stammering'. The person speaks fluently (or their dysfluency is relatively trivial) but only because they are using the strategies to hide their stammer. Almost everyone may relate to the person as fluent, not knowing about the stammer.

Stammering iceberg

Stammering is often compared with an iceberg. The effects of the stammer may be mostly invisible, beneath the surface.
©iStockphoto.com/jgroup

For more, see the BSA leaflet Interiorised/covert stammering leaflet (link to stammering.org).

The stammering 'iceberg'

Whether a person's stammer is overt or covert, there will often be a great deal going on inside, invisible to the listener. Stammering is compared with an icebeg. The stammering you see may only be the small part of the iceberg above the waterline. See www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad6/papers/hicks6.html and the link above.

Most of the stammer may be hidden underwater - fear, shame, panic, embarrassment etc, leading to the avoidance stategies described above. For example the person may be constantly scanning ahead for difficult words, planning how to change them. This may be really exhausting. Strategies such as avoiding conversations and social situations may of course impact on the person's ability to build relationships with people, and on their quality of life.

So even if a stammer may sound mild, or even be completely invisible, there can be a lot going on beneath the surface. The stammer may actually be having a a large effect.

Some people will have much more 'below the waterline' than others. An aim of speech and language therapy will generally be to reduce the invisible effects of a stammer, as well as working on the speech itself. Reducing invisible effects may actually mean that the person stammers more, but is happier with this. The person may now be saying more what they want to say, with a stammer.

Types of 'substantial' effect

For a stammer to be a 'disability' under the Equality Act, the main requirement is that it has a substantial adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. (see Substantial effect). There are three types of effect consider:

  1. Firstly, even without taking hidden effects into account, you may well have sufficient overt stammering to meet the test anyway. See Substantial effect. Hidden effects under 2 and 3 below are only needed if the stammer as it appears to others is not sufficient to meet the definition of 'disability', though in any event hidden effects may be useful to bolster the argument. Turning to hidden effects through avoidance/concealment:
  2. Secondly, one can see the effect as the avoidance in itself. For example, the fact that the person tends not to make phone calls may itself be seen as an effect of the stammer. See below 'Effect' as the avoidance itself.
  3. Thirdly, how the stammer would be if the person did not avoid should be seen as an effect. A person may not actually be stammering much, but how would their speech be if they were saying what they really wanted to? They might be stammering quite severely. It is ability to do normal day-to-day activities that matters, even though a person avoids activities because of how difficult they are. See below Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance.

Also, as I discuss below, the 2011 Guidance (like the 2006 guidance before it) is helpful to the argument that such avoidance/concealment strategies can be taken into account.

'Effect' as the avoidance itself

The first approach is to say that the avoidance/concealment is itself is an effect of the stammer. Provided this effect (with any other effect on normal day-to-day activities), is 'substantial', the stammer should be a disablity within the Equality Act.

The argument would be, for example:

Where someone avoids using the phone due to the stammer, an effect of the stammer is that the person cannot use the phone, or their use of it is restricted.

If a person says less than they want to because of the stammer, that is an effect of the stammer, restricting their ability to talk

The cases on stammering outlined below seem to have taken this approach, ie that the avoidance itself is an effect of the stammer. Para B24 of the 2011 guidance also takes this approach:

B24 A lady has significant scarring to her face as a result of a bonfire accident. The woman uses skin camouflage to cover the scars as she is very self conscious about her appearance. She avoids large crowds and bright lights including public transport and supermarkets and she does not socialise with people outside her family in case they notice the mark and ask her questions about it.

This amounts to a substantial adverse effect...

Para B24 of 2011 guidance. The example goes on to explain that, in any event, substantial adverse effect is not required to bring a severe disfigurement within the Equality Act.

Does not matter whether avoidance is a 'part' of the stammer

Many speech and language therapists (and indeed researchers) would probably say that a stammer is not just dysfluency but a set of symptoms, which can include avoidance/concealment. On this basis, one can argue that the stammer, through its symptom 'avoidance', restricts a person's ability to carry out conversations etc.

But it seems that it does not matter whether the avoidance as a symptom of the stammer. In the para B24 example above (a woman with facial scarring avoids large crowds and socialising, due to self-consciousness), the avoidance is not a symptom of the scarring, but the 2011 Guidance says it is a substantial effect. Also, avoidance by reason of substantial social embarrassment is specifically mentioned in the guidance:

B9 Account should also be taken of where a person avoids doing things which, for example, cause ... social embarrassment...
Para B9 of 2011 guidance. For full the paragraph, see below Extracts from 2011 gudiance.

Worth mentioning also:

"An illustrative and non-exhaustive list of factors which, if they are experienced by a person, it would be reasonable to regard as having a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities........

  • Persistently wanting to avoid people or significant difficulty taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, for example because of a mental health condition or disorder....."

Appendix of 2011 guidance.

Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance

This argument sounds a bit obscure but is actually very simple. The definition of 'disability' looks at whether there is a substantial adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Even though you avoid speaking in a partcular situation, your stammer can still affect your ability to speak in it.

A person finds their stammer particularly difficult on the telephone, and so tends to avoid using the phone. If the person did use the phone, they would stammer quite a lot. How their speech would be if they made the phone call is part of the stammer's effect on the person's ability to speak on the phone.

A person tends not to say something in a conversation if they feel they will stammer. This can mean the person actually sounds pretty fluent. However, the person is staying quiet precisely because of the difficulty they would have if they did speak, in other words because of the stammer's effect on their ablity to speak. The difficulty the person would have if they did speak is part of the stammer's effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

This argument has strong backing from the Employment Appeal Tribunal:

Goodwin v Patent Office, 1999, Employment Appeal Tribunal
"In order to constitute an adverse effect it is not the doing of the acts which is the focus of attention but rather the ability to do (or not to do) the acts [my emphasis]. Experience shows that disabled people often adjust their lives and circumstances to enable them to cope for themselves. Thus, a person whose capacity to communicate through normal speech was obviously impaired might well choose, more or less voluntarily, to live on their own. If one asked such a person whether they managed to carry on their daily lives without undue problems, the answer might well be "Yes;" yet their ability to lead a "normal" life had obviously been impaired. Such a person would be unable to communicate through speech and the ability to communicate through speech is obviously a capacity which is needed for carrying out normal day-to-day activities, whether at work or home. If asked whether they could use the telephone, or ask for directions or which bus to take, the answer would be "No". Those might be regarded as day-to-day activities contemplated by the legislation and that person's ability to carry them out would clearly be regarded as adversely affected."

In summary, there is a strong argument that the stammer is a 'disability' within the Equality Act if it would have a substantial (more than minor or trivial) effect on speech in normal day-to-day activities if one were not avoiding things due to the stammer. Also, as discussed above ('Effect' as the avoidance itself), there is a strong argument that the avoidance - eg not making the phone call, not saying what you want in a conversation - is itself an effect of the stammer, which may well be a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities. These two arguments will usually overlap - they are two different ways of looking at the same set of facts, eg a person not picking up the phone because of how much they would stammer on it.

Common sense

There is a strong policy argument that someone using concealment/avoidance strategies should be treated as having a disability. If tribunals focus on overt effects of stammering, this could have the very odd result that a person is more likely to be 'disabled' after speech therapy than before!

This is because current approaches to speech therapy encourage a person not to conceal stammering. Speech and language therapists generally encourage their clients to stammer more openly and to go into situations they may have been avoiding till now. More generally, the goals of modern therapy are to enable the person who stammers to communicate freely what they want to say and to reduce sensitivity and negative feelings/reactions to stammering.

The law should not be at odds with this. It cannot be right that a person is more likely to be seen as disabled after therapy when he is hopefully expressing himself more freely, albeit with a stammer.

Of course it is also appropriate that a person after therapy who may be stammering more overtly can still be disabled under the Equality Act. If he is speaking with a stammer, he may suffer discrimination which should fall within the legislation.

Word substitution (and "fillers")

Most of this page has focussed on avoiding particular situations where the person feels they will stammer, for example phone calls, parties, or failing to speak up in a conversation, or keeping a contribution short where they would like to say more.

However, a person who stammers will also often avoid words on which he feels he will stammer, and substitute other words which he feels he can say. This may be imperceptible to others. A person who stammers may develop a rich vocabulary because they get so used to substituting words.

Or the person may end up saying some rather odd things. I once picked up the phone when I could see it was our very proper senior partner calling and said "Hi", because I couldn't get anything else out. Jonathan Miller who had a stammer tells how he got on a bus wanting to go to Marble Arch and said: "Here's the fare for the arch that is made of marble". (He had a particular problem with m's, the first letter of his name.) Or a person may order a different drink at a bar or in a coffee shop because they can't say what they really want

People who stammer may also insert "fillers", meaningless words or phrases such as "actually", or "I mean", to help them avoid stammering. Or they may get a run up at a difficult word - eg a person who stammers often finds their name difficult, so rather than just saying "Allan" he might put a phrase before to help get it out: "My name is Allan."

Can this count towards a stammer having a substantial effect on ability to carry on normal day-to-day activties?

Guidance

The 2011 Guidance indicates that yes it can count. Both substituting words and inserting words or phrases (fillers, or getting a run up at saying a difficult word such as one's name) are specifically mentioned in the paragraph D17 example (below Extracts from 2011 guidance): "He sometimes tries to avoid stammering by substituting words, or by inserting extra words or phrases." The example implies that these are relevant towards a stammer having a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities. The Guidance is not an authoritative statement of the law, but tribunals must take it (including this example) into account where relevant.

That is the official guidance, but what are the legal arguments for saying that substituting/inserting words or phrases should be relevant to a stammer having a substantial effect?

Legal argument 1): Effect as the avoidance itself

One can argue for word subsitution to be taken into account under either of the two arguments discussed above. The first is 'Effect' as the avoidance itself.

The key issue under the statutory definition of disability is whether the effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities is substantial. I would argue that what is normal, day-to-day for most people is being able to say the words they want, not having to switch words all the time.

So one would argue an effect of the stammer is that the person is not saying what they actually want to say, and that may be a substantial effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

What if that is not enough, and the tribunal wants to see an effect beyond not being able to say the words one wants to? The person may be using a rich and varied vocabulary because of his avoiding. But he may also be saying some rather odd things, as in my "Hi" example and the Jonathan Miller example above. The message may be distorted. The person sound like they are beating about the bush, not expressing themself in as concise and impactful a way as they might. Whether there is a more than minor or trivial effect will depend on the facts.

 Wakefield v HM Land Registry (below), 2007, Employment Tribunal
The tribunal accepted that a stammer with covert symptoms was a 'disability'. The claimant's substituting of 'easier' words for something he could not say fluently might alter the whole gist of his message. The meaning which the listener would glean was not the meaning which the speaker would like to convey. Also as regards the duty to make reasonble adjustments, the tribunal accepted the claimant was at a 'substantial disadvantage' in a job interview. Although the claimant might "get the answers out" without too much overt stammering, the meaning of the anwers was distorted and the impression of superficiality created.

It is the effect on the individual which matters (Substantial effect: Effect on the individual), not whether their communication is below the population norm. So a person who can communicate well while hiding their stammer, but who finds themself held back at work because it stops them achieving an unusually high level of communication required for a promotion, say, may well be able to show the required 'substantial' adverse effect:

Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The claimant had dyslexia. An employment tribunal found that the claimant was disadvantaged when compared to his non-dyslexic colleagues in a high pressure exam for promotion, but that he was not disadvantaged with reference to the "ordinary average norm of the population as a whole" and did not have a 'disability'. He had produced high quality written work as a chief inspector. The EAT said the employment tribunal had applied the wrong test. One needed to consider how the claimant in fact carries out the activity compared with how he would do it if not suffering the impairment.

Legal argument 2): How the stammer would be without avoidance

Under the second argument above Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance, it can be argued that if a person would stammer if he were not switching words etc, that is an effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, ie to speak the words he wants. If that stammer would be substantial ('more than minor or trivial') if he were not switching words or using fillers, then it can be argued that the statutory test is met.

Legal argument 3): Schedule 1 para 5

Alternatively, I believe one could strongly argue for same result under under Equality Act Schedule 1 para 5, discussed under Therapy, and using speech techniques or devices. Schedule 1 para 5 allows one to discount measures being taken to correct a disability. If Schedule 1 para 5 applies, the stammer has to be looked at as it would be if you weren't substituting words or inserting fillers. This brings a similar result to the argument above Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance. It is not clear whether or not a Schedule 1 para 5 argument will be accepted, but my view is that it should be.

Knowledge of stammer - possible defence by employer etc

Where a person has a covert stammer, other people may not be aware of the stammer. Or where someone has an overt stammer with additional hidden effects, people may not be aware of the extent of the stammer.

For some types of discrimination, the employer or service provider has a defence if it did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability. This will depend on the facts and what type of discrimination is being claimed. See Knowledge of disability.

However, it is important that this not limited to actual knowledge: What if the employer or service provider did not actually know? - taking reasonable steps to find out. It is also relevant what the employer etc could reasonably be expected to know. Since it is so common for a stammer (and other disabilities!) to have hidden effects, it might be argued that the employer etc is on notice that there may well be hidden effects, provided the employer knows (or should know) of the stammer itself.

2011 Guidance

The 2011 Guidance includes an example on stammering which is helpful in taking account of avoidance/concealment strategies. There is also some more general discussion on avoidance strategies. The Guidance it is not an authoritative statement of the law, but tribunals must take it into account where relevant.

Extracts from 2011 Guidance:

"...A man has had a stammer since childhood. He does not stammer all the time, but his stammer, particularly in telephone calls, goes beyond the occasional lapses in fluency found in the speech of people who do not have the impairment. However, this effect can often be hidden by his avoidance strategies. He tries to avoid making or taking telephone calls where he believes he will stammer, or he does not speak as much during the calls. He sometimes tries to avoid stammering by substituting words, or by inserting extra words or phrases.

"In these cases there are substantial adverse effects on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day communication activities."

Para D17 of 2011 guidance. It says 'these' cases because there are two non-stammering examples before this example.

The example in para D17 clearly indicates that hidden elements of a stammer should be taken into account.

A lady has significant scarring to her face as a result of a bonfire accident. The woman uses skin camouflage to cover the scars as she is very self conscious about her appearance. She avoids large crowds and bright lights including public transport and supermarkets and she does not socialise with people outside her family in case they notice the mark and ask her questions about it.

This amounts to a substantial adverse effect...

Para B24 of 2011 guidance. The example goes on to explain that, in any event, substantial adverse effect is not required to bring a severe disfigurement within the Equality Act. This example is discussed in the text above: 'Effect' as the avoidance itself.

B9 Account should also be taken of where a person avoids doing things which, for example, cause pain, fatigue or substantial social embarrassment, or avoids doing things because of a loss of energy and motivation. It would not be reasonable to conclude that a person who employed an avoidance strategy was not a disabled person. In determining a question as to whether a person meets the definition of disability it is important to consider the things that a person cannot do, or can only do with difficulty.
Para B9 of 2011 guidance. This paragraph is discussed as regards social embarassment above under 'Effect' as the avoidance itself, and more generally below Avoidance strategies - paragraphs B7-B9.

"An illustrative and non-exhaustive list of factors which, if they are experienced by a person, it would be reasonable to regard as having a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities........

  • Persistently wanting to avoid people or significant difficulty taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, for example because of a mental health condition or disorder....."

Appendix of 2011 guidance.

Avoidance strategies - paragraphs B7-B9

Though not referring particularly to stammering, paragraphs B7-B9 in the 2011 Guidance have general discussion about using avoidance.

The paragraphs are not easy to understand. For example para B7 says "In some instances, a coping or avoidance strategy might alter the effects of the impairment to the extent that they are no longer substantial and the person would no longer meet the definition of disability." But para B9 says "It would not be reasonable to conclude that a person who employed an avoidance strategy was not a disabled person."

It is welcome that para B9 mentions substantial social embarrassment as something which may lead a person to avoid - this is very relevant to stammering. And it is this same para B9 which says it would not be reasonable to conclude that a person who employed an avoidance strategy was not a disabled person. But what the guidance means overall is difficult to fathom.

The general thrust of these paragraphs is that account should be taken of how far a person can reasonably be expected to modify his or her behaviour, "for example by use of a coping or avoidance strategy", to prevent or reduce the effects of an impairment. An example indicates, for example that it would be reasonable to expect a person who has chronic back pain to avoid extreme activities such as skiing, but it would not be reasonable to expect the person to give up, or modify, more normal activities that might exacerbate the symptoms; such as shopping, or using public transport. To my mind the paragraphs confuse two issues:

Cases

Shirlow v Translink, 2007, Industrial Tribunal Northern Ireland
The industrial tribunal held that the claimant's stammer was a 'disability' within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Among other things, the claimant would employ avoidance strategies by asking other people to do things for him.

 

Wakefield v HM Land Registry, 2007, Employment Tribunal
There had been a tribunal case before this one where an Employment Tribunal had held the claimant's stammer to be a disability. The employer had argued in the previous case that there was no disability, and had not accepted that the claimant managed at work only with difficulty. This, said the tribunal in the present case, completely ignored the covert nature of his symptoms. In the tribunal's judgment, the employer was unwilling or unable to accept the clear message of a speech and language therapist's report, that the mere fact that the claimant did not fall silent or stammer audibly was no proof at all that he had conveyed the message he would like to convey. His substituting of 'easier' words for something he could not say fluently might alter the whole gist of his message. The meaning which the listener would glean was not the meaning which the speaker would like to convey. (More: Wakefield v HM Land Registry: Covert nature of the stammer).

The present case involved a claim for reasonable adjustments at an interview for promotion. The Employment Tribunal's decision that there was a breach of the reasonable adjustment duty was reversed on appeal, but not on the grounds discussed here. In the present case it was accepted that the claimant's stammer was a disability. However, as regards the reasonable adjustment duty, the employer argued that the claimant was as disadvantaged in the interview as he claimed to be. The claimant had managed to give "fluent focussed and clear responses to questions" throughout the interview. "The tribunal commented that the employer's argument ignored the speech and language therapist's report about covert symptoms of the stammer. Although the claimant may "get the answers out" without too much overt stammering, the meaning of the anwers is distorted and the impression of superficiality created. The interviewing panel's notes included comments such as "didn't answer L's question", and "did little in the interview to build on his paper application". The reason given for rejecting him for the job was that his answers "failed to show in-depth experiences and examples. (More on this).

Before 2006 - the Shaughnessy case

Offical guidance dealing particularly with stammering and avoidance was first introduced in 2006, and has been continued into the present 2011 guidance (above).

Before 2006 we had the Shaughnessy case, where in 2000 an Employment Tribunal dealt with a largely concealed stammer.

Shaughnessy v The Lord Advocate (2000), Employment Tribunal
A lawyer with a stammer was turned down for a job. His DDA claim failed on the grounds that the stammer did not have a 'substantial' effect. His stammer was largely concealed and was held to be too minor to be a 'disability.

The stammer did seem to have had a major effect on the applicant's life. However, the Tribunal found that the stammer was not a disability on the facts, concentrating on how far the stammer had overt effects.

Even before 2006, I very much doubt that another Tribunal to whom the proper arguments were put would have followed this case. In particular the Goodwin case (see above Effect as how the stammer would be if no avoidance) does not seem to have been properly addressed. In any event, those drafting the 2006 Guidance were aware of the case, following representations made by British Stammering Association. Both the 2006 and 2011 Guidance seem to try and steer tribunals away from the approach taken by in that case.

Top

Homepage | Equality Act in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer

© Allan Tyrer 1999-2013
Last updated 6th May, 2013