Defining 'Disability' Looking for those who do not meet the criteria.

Some of us have found that because we've just been diagnosed (even though it is a life long disability) that companies are refusing to make reasonable adjustments.

Regarding the definition:
There are exceptions. If you're diagnosed with cancer or registered as partially sighted or blind, you're classed as disabled from day one.

I don't know if this will be any help to you, but I'm happy to explain my story;

I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome a couple of months ago, which is quite rare for a 17 year old as usually it's diagnosed in childhood. After the diagnosis, my school (I'm not sure this is the kind of authority you're looking for to determine a disability) didn't offer any help or support. For example,


As far as the government recognising it as a disability, I had some trouble claiming DLA, the first application being denied as 'I'm not likely to harm myself or anyone else, or be in a hazardous situation, I don't need help with day to day tasks such as feeding, taking medication, going to appointments'. All of these reasons were contradictory to the evidence sent so we appealed and finally got an acknowledgement of a successful application. This implies that as far as the government is concerned, my 'disability' is only relevant in certain situations which I don't feel is the case. It's constantly with me, most things I try to do are overshadowed by the fact I don't cope well in social situations, need 'care' nearly all of the time and don't interact well either on my own or socially.

Again, not sure if this is the type of thing you were looking for but thought I'd write my bit.

For sure, other irrefutable exceptions are HIV/Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, Facial Scarring, Birthmarks and even major visual skin disorders such as psoriasis.

You didn't state what the diagnosis was, if you mind me asking?

For sure, other irrefutable exceptions are HIV/Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, Facial Scarring, Birthmarks and even major visual skin disorders such as psoriasis.

You didn't state what the diagnosis was, if you mind me asking?


Thanks for the input, yes that is helpful. I was going to say that the most common 'part' of the assessment was for X to say that although you may have a perceived disability that it doesn't affect your day to day tasks. As I just mentioned above, there have been successful appeals in court and it was held that large scarring, birthmarks or sever skin disorders that are visible on your face automatically give you the protection of being disabled so as to limit you being discriminated against. Obviously a facial birthmark doesn't fulfill the requirements but it's very possible to be turned down a job because of it, so that's the rationale for providing persons with protection.

I'm going to have a look into aspergers... that's an interesting one because I guess it varies by how severe you have it? Akin to depression I guess it would depend how much it really affects you so you wont automatically qualify as disabled. Unlike only having one leg which is a bit more obvious.

I'll also read up on the DLA process and their forms to see how their criteria compares and how they judge it because I guess that's where a lot of people will be trying to prove themselves as disabled. Thanks for the suggestion!

May I ask if you feel that you do come under the definition of disabled? And as such if you were to apply to a job would you be happy to tell your employer that you are disabled? Similarly, would you tick a box that states 'disabled' on it, if it were part of an application/form?

Why would some skin disorders come under the exception? Not all skin disorders are disabling either. (I've had a few) Many also wouldn't last long enough to cover the definition.

My diagnosis was Autism. It was argued that it can't be that serious because I've just been diagnosed. Females are a lot harder to diagnose than males.




It's not just about the severity. There are some people with mild forms of it; but depending on their exact traits, it can be disabling. For example, many people will have some of sensory issue.



DLA and the definition of disability are 2 different things. My dad, for example, is classed as disabled (he has epilepsy controlled by medication) but he wouldn't meet the criteria for DLA because it's controlled fully with no side effects by medication. And some people are expected to be able to self care.

DLA is based on care and /or mobility needs. Nothing to do with the definition of disability.

I think it's an interesting point raised regarding the DLA though. If someone has epilepsy controlled by medication it's very likely that they are to be regarded as disabled and as such would be entitled to make adjustments at work and also raise a claim for disability discrimination, but would not be able to make a claim for DLA. The fact that the Equality Act recognises medication controlled disability is a little bit controversial in my opinion, so I'd be interested to see why the DLA do not subscribe to such view.

Seems crazy as my granny got one no problem for being partially sighted - she can walk fine and as far as anyone.

OP you ay wish to also consider exemptions from the discrimination legislation. I still find it unbelievable for instance that exam boards are excluded, so they have no obligation to give consideration to how a disability affects a student in an exam.

A blue badge isn't just about being able to walk fine. In your gran's case, her mobility is affected - she may not see that well and may risk walking into the road into oncoming traffic.

I do totally agree but she could obviously never drive anywhere and so will never be in a car on her own meaning she has the driver to help her know if she can cross etc although she is able to cross roads independently.

It's nothing to do with driving.

Mmm that one's a touchy topic indeed. The whole purpose of disability discrimination is to end unfavourable treatment to a disabled person, not to encourage favourable treatment to a disabled person. Although disability discrimination is one of the only protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 to actually permit favourable treatment.

That's where you end up looking into positive discrimination and the pro's/con's of the philosophy of that.

Exam boards are not excluded from equality act. The main problem with equality act is the misunderstanding of what it means. If you are disabled the university , school , employer hasto make adjusts to put you in as near as possible to the position you would be without you disability. There fore it does not effect your education or job they don't need to do anything but that is rarely the real position. However many organisation think they can ignore it if you are "copying" however that is not the position. I think the definition of disability is actually not the problem. The problem is employers,universities etc denying the disability and the employee or student not being in the position challenge their erroneous decision on it. It is almost as the default position is to deny disability even if it is obvious.

For sure, other irrefutable exceptions are HIV/Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, Facial Scarring, Birthmarks and even major visual skin disorders such as psoriasis.