Posted By Jason Gould Interesting stuff. I believe that stress will now have to be defined much clearer in future by doctors etc as it is obviously gaining more and more publicity within the workplace and courts. A potential minefield for the un-prepared companies is about to be layed if what you have read is to be true. The DDA may have a beneficial effect on the companies that still today refuse to acknowledge the existence of work related stress or stress in general, but I cannot see it being the bearer of huge compensation claims in fact it may prevent the abuse of this type claim with the consultations before the courts procedures it has in place. That way some companies will rightly make the necessary changes and the ignorant companies who refuse to act will just have to pay. Stress is not an easy claim to prove as it is and if it is going to be covered within DDA then I hope there will be better definitions/diagnosis than the ones already existence. Here A puzzle I myself had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress due to an assault a few years ago. It has been running for 2 years and I have been paid by criminal injuries for that. After 5 years diagnosis I could have be given another reward. (Is it a disability? I do not know) Now lets say I was some form of lone worker for your company at the time of the assault and when I returned to work I felt very uneasy about traveling on estates and visiting strangers alone etc etc. So it was affecting my ability to perform my job and now causing work-related stress to me. What action do you think your companies would want to take? Personally I think I would have been down the road in a lot of circumstances.

Posted By Eric Burt The Court of Appeal ruling in the Hatton v Sutherland case was quite clear - stress itself is not actionable but mental illness caused by stress may be (if it was caused wholly or partly by work). I can understand this and have no problem with it. What it appears the DWP are saying in this draft Bill (which I have not seen yet) is that "stress" itself may come under DDA. The HSE has defined stress as "an adverse reaction...." therefore this seems to throw the whole thing into confusion. Since when has an "adverse reaction" become a DDA issue? It seems the DWP and the HSE are clearly laying the issue of stress on the employer's shoulders, whereas the Court of Appeal have said that the employee must make the employer aware of their stress (whether work-related or not) to give the employer the opportunity to do something about it. This puts the onus on both the employer AND the employee, which seems fair (a bit like including section 7 HASAWA). This is turning into a minefield for H&S Practitioners who are trying to advise employers and employees on the best approach because the HSE view doesn't appear to sit squarely with the view taken by the civil courts. Eric