Type 2 diabetes and plantar fasciitis: when conditions don't meet the disability threshold
A tribunal has ruled that a coffee specialist's type 2 diabetes and plantar fasciitis were not disabilities under the Equality Act, dismissing his discrimination claim at a preliminary stage.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #type-2-diabetes
- #plantar-fasciitis
- #substantial-adverse-effect
- #deduced-effect
- #medication
- #occupational-health
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes in July 2017 and Plantar Fasciitis in April 2018.
- The claimant worked as a Boutique Coffee Specialist at Nestle UK Limited from February 2013.
- The claimant's Plantar Fasciitis symptoms were intermittent and resolved with appropriate footwear.
- The claimant's diabetes was managed with medication and diet; he needed toilet breaks and water breaks.
- The tribunal found that neither condition had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities during the relevant period.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Boutique Coffee Specialist at Nestle UK Limited.
-
Diabetes diagnosis
Claimant was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes.
-
First OH report
Occupational Health report noted heel and back pain, recommended manual handling review and appropriate footwear.
-
Plantar Fasciitis diagnosis
Claimant was diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis.
-
Transfer to Westfield Stratford
Claimant transferred to the Nespresso Boutique at Westfield Stratford.
-
Second OH report
OH report stated diabetes managed with diet and medication, Plantar Fasciitis improved considerably.
-
Capability meeting
Claimant stated Plantar Fasciitis had improved for 5-6 months but returned in September 2019 due to new work shoes.
-
Third OH report
OH report noted heel/foot pain intermittent and related to work footwear; claimant fully fit for role.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed from employment.
-
Preliminary hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on whether claimant's conditions were disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's type 2 diabetes and plantar fasciitis were disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 – that is, whether they had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities between June 2019 and September 2020.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that neither condition was a disability. The key reasons were:
- The claimant's plantar fasciitis symptoms were intermittent and resolved with appropriate footwear, so they did not have a substantial adverse effect.
- His type 2 diabetes was managed with medication and diet, requiring only toilet and water breaks, which did not amount to a substantial effect on day-to-day activities.
- The tribunal considered the conditions individually and cumulatively, but found no evidence of substantial adverse effect during the relevant period.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- A medical diagnosis alone does not automatically mean you are disabled under the Equality Act – you must show a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.
- Intermittent symptoms that resolve with treatment or adjustments (like better footwear) are less likely to meet the disability threshold.
- Employers should still consider reasonable adjustments even if a condition is not a disability, as this can reduce the risk of other claims.
- Keep a diary of how your condition affects daily tasks – vague references to pain or discomfort may not be enough to prove substantial effect.
This case shows that having a diagnosed medical condition is not enough to bring a disability discrimination claim. The employee, a boutique coffee specialist with nine years' service at Nestle UK Limited, had type 2 diabetes and plantar fasciitis. He argued that these conditions made it harder to stand for long periods and required extra breaks. However, the tribunal found that the impact on his daily life was not 'substantial' enough to meet the legal definition of disability.
What the tribunal looked at
The tribunal examined medical records, occupational health reports, and witness evidence. It noted that the plantar fasciitis symptoms came and went, and were largely resolved when the employee wore supportive shoes. His diabetes was well-controlled with medication, and the only adjustments needed were toilet and water breaks – which the tribunal did not consider a substantial adverse effect. The key period was June 2019 to September 2020, and the tribunal found no evidence that either condition significantly limited his ability to carry out normal activities like walking, standing, or lifting.
What the employer did right
Nestle UK Limited had referred the employee to occupational health, provided adjustments like manual handling reviews, and allowed him to change roles. The tribunal noted that the employer's knowledge of the conditions did not equate to knowledge of a substantial adverse effect – because there was none. This highlights that employers who engage with occupational health and offer support may be better placed to defend against disability claims.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that the disability definition under the Equality Act is not automatic. You need to show that your condition has a more than minor or trivial impact on everyday tasks. For employers, it confirms that not every long-term health issue will qualify as a disability, but it is still good practice to consider adjustments and keep records of what you know and when.
Similar cases
Teaching Assistant with ADHD, anxiety and depression found disabled under Equality Act
A tribunal ruled that a teaching assistant with ADHD, anxiety and depression was disabled at the time of her employment, allowing her disability discrimination claim to proceed.
Delivery driver with carpal tunnel syndrome not disabled under Equality Act
A delivery driver who had carpal tunnel syndrome surgery and returned to work without sickness absence was found not to be disabled. The tribunal dismissed her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims.
Night porter with type 2 diabetes found disabled from date of diagnosis
A tribunal ruled that a night porter with type 2 diabetes was disabled from the date of his diagnosis, but rejected his claim that sleepiness was a substantial adverse effect. The case will now proceed to a final hearing on his discrimination and dismissal claims.
Train driver with anxiety after rail incident not disabled under Equality Act
A Cardiff tribunal found that a train driver with anxiety and depression following a serious railway accident was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010, as his impairment did not have a substantial or long-term effect on day-to-day activities.