Am i covered under the dda

[clashcityrocker]

What counts as a disability in law?

Disability is not always obvious. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a person as disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

‘Normal day-to-day’ means things that people do on a regular or daily basis, such as reading, writing, using the telephone, having a conversation and travelling by public transport .
‘Long-term’ usually means the impairment should have lasted or be expected to last at least a year.
‘Substantial’ means not minor or trivial.

The key thing is not the impairment but its effect. Some people don’t realise that impairments such as migraines, dyslexia, asthma and back pain can count as a disability if the adverse effect on the individual is substantial and long-term. Some conditions automatically count as disabilities for the purposes of DDA, from the point at which the individual first has them – these are cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis (MS).

Your local Jobcentre Plus or the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC) can tell you more. The EHRC has advice on what counts as a disability [1] according to the law.

[the mad woman]

is an insulin dependant diabetic covered by dda

[fishtank]

is an insulin dependant diabetic covered by dda

Diabetes (sometimes with no distinction made between Type I and Type II) has been found in previous cases to amount to a disability under the Act. This does not mean, however, that this condition wil always amount to a disability in every case. If you believe you have been discriminated against and your employee argues that you are
not disabled (and so not protected by the Act), it wil be a question of fact for an Employment Tribunal to determine whether your condition has a substantial and longterm adverse effect on your ability to carry out day-to-day activities in your particular circumstances.
In determining whether someone with diabetes is disabled there are several key points to note:

In each person's case there wil need to be an objective assessment conducted of the circumstances to ascertin whether that person is disabled for the purposes of the Act. This is an assessment for the Employment Tribunal to
make (usually with medical assistance);Progressive Conditions" enjoy special protection under that Act which, in
theory means that even where there is no current substantial adverse affect on your day-to-day activities, the fact that you have a condition (such as Type II diabetes) may provide you with protection in any event (although there must be some effect showing). (Diabetes has been found in a previous case to amount to a progressive condition, but unfortnately, no distinction was drawn between Type I and Type II diabetes in the case, so the outcome of a challenge on this basis is not certian);

The beneficial effects of medical treatment are discounted when considering whether someone is disabled. So, for example, while someone who has well controlled diabetes thanks to a successful and well managed insulin regimen
may not have substantial negative effects on their day to day activities, take the insulin away and the situation changes radically, allowing them to be protected by the Act.

Due to the fact that medication is disregarded, it is almost certin that all insulin dependent diabetes sufferers are viewed as disabled for the purposes of the Act (this is often not even disputed by employers);

Those people with diabetes who rely on medication, but not insulin, may also be considered disabled. This wil very much depend on their individual circumstances, but given the fact that medication is to be discounted when
considering whether someone is disabled, it seems likely that Type II diabetics
taking medication such as Metformin, Glicliazide etc would be protected by
the Act;
Those people who manage by diet and exercise alone, may not be offered the protection of the Act. However, this is by no means certain, since government guidance on the issue provides that "if a disabled person is advised by a
medical practitioner to behave in a certain way in order to reduce the impact of a disability, that might count as treatment to be disregarded". In other words, if you have been advised by a nutritionist or doctor to follow a strict diet and to take certain exercise on a regular basis, the assessment as to whether you are disabled may have to take place in a world where you don't do the diet or take the exercise;
Remember that secondary conditions (such as retinopathy, neuropathy or heart disease) could of themselves amount to a disability under the Act

In general terms, it is likely that all people with Type I diabetes wil be covered by the Act. It is likely that many people with Type II diabetes who take medication to control the ilness wil be covered by the Act. Those with Type II diabetes who manage by diet and exercise alone may not be covered, but this will depend on the circumstances.

[clashcityrocker]

is an insulin dependant diabetic covered by dda

Yes.

[andy2007]

Go to see your Doctor, and ask him/her to confirm that you're covered by the DDA (that's what I did). The first time I had problems, the Managers denied that I was covered by the DDA. The second time, I went in armed with confirmation that I AM covered by the DDA. Although they still tried to fob me off. Eventually, they had to conceed that they had to make reasonable adjustments for me (to avoid a 3rd time). But be warned: What RM Managers consider to be reasonable adjustments, and what you actually need. Will almost certainly differ greatly. It isn't easy getting the adjustments you need. But with patience, and a good Rep. It can, and WILL be achieved.

Please let us know how you get on.