Nursery exclusion for epilepsy
Key findings:
- The panel held that excluding the child [C], based on C’s seizures, was discrimination ‘arising from disability’, since the exclusion was directly tied to the disability.
- Though the nursery claimed a legitimate safety concern, it failed to demonstrate that exclusion was a proportionate means – no effort was made to explore alternatives such as adjusted hours, one-on-one supervision, or external medical advice.
- Despite recognising discrimination, no financial award was made; instead, the Tribunal issued a declaration affirming the child’s rights, noting that C’s care remained uninterrupted.
Implications:
- Declarations still matter: Even without compensation, formal legal acknowledgement can influence institutional policy and practice.
- Proactive accommodations are essential: Service providers must actively assess and document every realistic alternative before resorting to exclusion.
