Alcohol addiction is not a disability (at least not according to the Equality Act 2010), but should it be?
Given current health trends and a greater understanding of addiction, one can’t help but wonder whether the Equality Act definition is going to be tested and stretched. The current wording of the Act describes a disability as any physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term impact on a person’s ability to carry out everyday activities. However, whilst alcohol addiction would seem to fit that bill, one important aspect of the Act is that it explicitly excludes alcohol addiction from being classified as a disability.
But what does this exclusion mean in practice? Although alcoholism itself is not recognised as a disability, the conditions that may arise from it—such as liver disease, depression, or brain injury—might well be. Equally alcohol addiction is often not the whole story – other conditions, such as depression, can be an underlying factor in dependency and that underlying factor may well mean that the individual is disabled in law.
The decision to exclude alcohol addiction from the definition of disability reflects a policy decision to separate “lifestyle choices” from protected characteristics. However, this approach may not fully account for the realities of addiction as a chronic, relapsing condition with significant medical and psychological implications. Should the law remain static, or is there a case for it to adapt in light of our evolving understanding of addiction?
Given the increasing understanding of addiction as a health condition rather than purely an unfavourable lifestyle choice, there’s a growing conversation about whether the law should change to reflect this. The law already protects aspects of the condition that lead to significant impairments in a person’s ability to perform day-to-day activities. For example, if someone is struggling with alcoholism and it leads to serious health problems that hinder their daily functioning, those health issues could potentially be covered by the Act, even if the consequences are directly related to their alcohol addiction. Further, doctors are more and more frequently diagnosing underlying mental health conditions for those with alcohol dependency, suggesting perhaps that the exclusion in the Equality Act has less relevance than it used to.
The current challenge, however, lies in distinguishing between behaviours and conditions caused directly by alcohol addiction and those that are separate, or linked disabilities. This is where employers face a particularly complex task.
Dismissing an individual because of missed work or inappropriate behaviours linked to alcohol may seem straightforward. However, before making decisions regarding an employee with potential alcohol addiction issues, it is crucial to consider underlying factors and to obtain a detailed Occupational Health report. Such a report can provide an objective assessment of the employee’s condition, helping to distinguish whether the condition is mainly a consequence of alcohol addiction or if there are independent conditions that may be recognised as a disability under the Equality Act.
Why is this so important? The current focus of the Equality Act is on whether the associated conditions, like depression or anxiety, meet the criteria for a disability. But there’s an opportunity to adopt a more nuanced approach that considers the relationship between mental health conditions and substance abuse disorders. Rather than treating these as separate issues, the law could evolve to better recognise the interaction between these conditions.
For employers, navigating this terrain is anything but straightforward.
Without an appropriate OH assessment , employers risk making decisions based on incomplete or incorrect information, potentially leading to unlawful discrimination or wrongful dismissal claims. For instance, in cases like Kalaher v IND Ltd, the tribunal’s decision heavily relied on a consultant’s report that highlighted the employee’s psychological issues beyond alcohol misuse, leading to the conclusion that the employee was disabled under the Act. In contrast, in Kunicki v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the tribunal’s decision was based on the fact that the employee’s difficulties were primarily due to excessive alcohol consumption, not a separate mental health condition, which meant that the employee was not considered disabled under the Act. Here, the Occupational Health and psychiatric reports provided the necessary evidence to distinguish between symptoms caused by alcohol addiction and those caused by a potential disability.
A comprehensive Occupational Health report does not just clarify the situation; it can also identify reasonable adjustments that could be made to support the employee. If an employee is suffering from a disability associated with or aggravated by alcohol consumption, the report could suggest adjustments to the workplace or job duties to accommodate the employee’s needs. This not only helps in preventing the condition from getting worse but also supports the employee in their rehabilitation and retention in the workplace.
In summary, while the Equality Act 2010 does not currently recognise alcoholism as a disability, there is potential for the law to evolve to better address the complexities of addiction and its associated conditions. Until that happens, the role of Occupational Health reports in providing detailed, accurate assessments cannot be overstated. Employers must prioritise obtaining these reports to navigate the complex legal landscape effectively and to ensure that their actions are both legally compliant and supportive of the employee’s well-being.
Author