Karsten Kaltoft was a Danish childminder who was employed by the local council in Billund. In November 2010 he was dismissed from his job after 15 years’ employment. Kaltoft had been obese for the duration of his employment. He claimed that the reason for his dismissal was his obesity and that this constituted a form of discrimination.

The ECJ considered whether obesity fell within the definition of disability, which would allow the condition to be automatically protected under disability discrimination legislation. The Court found that the question to be asked is whether the employee’s obesity impairs them from participating equally with their workplace colleagues and whether this impairment is long term. If so, then the obesity will constitute a disability.

“Such would be the case if the obesity of the worker hindered that participation on account of reduced mobility or the onset of medical conditions preventing that person from carrying out work or causing discomfort when exercising professional activity.” European Court of Justice

CASE Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of the Municipality of Billund, European Court of Justice, 18 December 2014

The Claimant in Walker v Sita Information Networking weighed 21½ stones and his obesity caused him fatigue, breathlessness, musculo-skeletal pains and difficulty in walking.  The question for the Tribunal to decide was whether he was disabled.

At the time of the claim, the relevant legislation was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  In the Act disability was defined as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

The EAT outlined the approach to be taken when deciding whether a Claimant is disabled.  One should ask whether the Claimant has an impairment which can be described as physical or mental.  If so, the Claimant is disabled.  It is not necessary to identify the cause of the impairment.

In Walker the Claimant had both physical and mental impairments.  He was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act.

CASE Walker v Sita Information Networking Computing Ltd, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 8 February 2013