Does A Bald Head Mean You Are Disabled?

I can’t help but notice the fashion for baldness among men of all ages. The shaven head has become de rigueur in the office and boardroom and is no longer associated with either old men or young hooligans.

So it’s quite surprising that a Scottish employment tribunal heard a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) brought by a high school teacher who complained that he was constantly taunted by pupils for his baldness.

Children for generations have given their teachers nick-names, there’s nothing new about that. But this particular teacher took the view that his baldness was a disability and that he was entitled to claim harassment as a result of his disability.

The tribunal, rightly threw out his claim and said:
“If baldness was to be regarded as an impairment, then perhaps a physical feature such as a big nose, big ears or being smaller than average height might of themselves be regarded as an impairment”

Even if the baldness was caused by an underlying medical condition or treatment, the baldness itself does not affect day to day living. No wonder he didn’t succeed.

So, what is a disability? In a nutshell, the person must have “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities”

This means a physical or mental illness or impairment which causes significant difficulties for day to day living and the difficulties must be long term.

Some specific illnesses are excluded including alcoholism and other dependencies, hay fever and tendencies to illegal acts such as stealing and lighting fires.

What if the illness isn’t long term? Does is still count as a disability? How long is long term?

A lady in Cardiff put this question to the test when she dislocated her knee in an accident, taking some 5 months off work to achieve a full recovery. Two years later, she dislocated her knee again whilst in the street. Astonishingly, she felt her knee cap with her hand, pushed it back into place and continued on her way. She did, however, take a month off work following this second accident.

In the meantime, she was absent from work for other reasons and, as a result of this, her employers dismissed her. She took the employer to tribunal claiming disability discrimination. To establish her knee cap problem fell within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act she had to show either her impairment lasted at least 12 months, or the effect of the disability was likely to recur.

Indeed it did recur! The knee cap shifted when she had her second accident, which proved her case. The fact that the dislocation was likely to recur meant that she was technically disabled under the definitions in the Act, even though she was not suffering any ill effects or difficulty with day to day living.

The employer disagreed with the court’s decision and took the case to an appeal but were unsuccessful

With two unusual cases and two completely different results, disability is not always what it seems.

For more information or advice, contact Caroline Mitchell

Published 24/04/2008.