Another coal on the fire, Mr Scrooge?

It may be reassuring to know that in this period of cold weather and economic gloom at least the Department for Work and Pensions is keeping a eye on its energy consumption.

I recently came across the case of Sawyer v. The Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, a decision from of the EAT from last August, but not one to make it into the pages of the IRLRs. Mr Sawyer's claim for disability discrimination was dismissed in the tribunal on the grounds that he was not disabled. His claimed disability was, in a nutshell, that he could not tolerate temperature's below 27 degrees. Problematic, one might think in view of the typical British climate. He claimed that the Respondent had, for a time, provided him with a portable heater, but then this was taken away from him.

Mr Sawyer said that when the temperature dropped he experienced reoccurrent colds and chest infections, which, in the EAT's view "by definition, come and go". While those of us who have had to suffer endless colds over the winter might well have ssympathy with the EAT's view (and little sympathy with Mr Sawyer perhaps), might there actually be something in this claim?

HIs Honour Judge McMullen QC commented, "that he develops a cold or a chest infection when the room temperature drops seems to me not to be an impairment or at least not an impairment within the meaning of the statute". Is that necessarily correct in ever case? Will it not vary with the severity or frequency of the infections?

Whatever the answer, for now we had better all put another layer on because they'll be no more coal on the fire Mr Cratchit.