You don’t stop being disabled just because you’ve learned to cope most of the time
“EATStands for Employment Appeal Tribunal. It hears appeals from employment tribunal decisions on points of law, not on the facts. It is not a way of simply asking for a second opinion on the outcome. overturned the tribunal, ruling coping most of the time doesn't rule out a substantial impairment.”
Coping doesn't mean you're not disabled. The law asks what happens when your coping stops working, not just how you manage on a good day.
- The comparison is with you, not with people in general. Managing as well as "most people" isn't the test.
- Coping strategies breaking down under stress still counts. A tribunal has to consider that, not just credit you for coping most of the time.
- One narrow focus isn't enough. If a tribunal only looks at what you manage and skips what you struggle with, that's a legal error, not a fair assessment.
- Read this alongside Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (2025): together, they're worth citing if an employer or tribunal tries to explain away your difficulties.
The situation
A long-serving council employee was referred for an autism assessment during disciplinary proceedings brought by a new manager over how he recorded his working hours. He was later diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism Spectrum Condition. He brought a disability discrimination claim, and at a preliminary hearing the tribunal accepted the diagnosis but ruled its effects were only "minor", so he did not meet the legal definition of disability.
What the tribunal found
The original tribunal had found he coped well most of the time, managed his own adjustments, and was successful at work and in a demanding second career. It compared him to people generally, decided his difficulties with public speaking and socialising were no different from what many people find hard, and concluded any effect was minor.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that was wrong on several counts. The comparison should be between the person as they are and as they would be without the impairment, not against the general population. Coping well doesn't settle the question either, a tribunal has to consider whether coping strategies might break down under stress, not just credit someone with managing "most of the time". The tribunal had also focused too narrowly on public speaking and socialising while barely looking at the difficulty coping with changes of procedure and communicating with his manager, the things at the actual centre of his claim. The case went back to a fresh tribunal to be decided properly.
For the fuller legal test behind this, see our guide on what the law actually protects if you're neurodivergent. This sits alongside Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd on the same legal question.
Elliott v Dorset County Council. Case No. UKEAT/0197/20/LA (V). Employment Appeal Tribunal. 9 April 2021.