Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant (Ms A Ward) alleged disability under the Equality Act 2010 due to stress, anxiety, and PTSD linked to her employment with Dermalogica UK Limited. The Tribunal found her evidence not supported by medical records, noting gaps in GP entries (2015-2017, 2018-2020) and discrepancies in medication use (Propranolol). Panic attacks occurred on 22 August 2018 and 16 January 2020, but the Tribunal concluded the adverse effects were not long-term (12 months or more) at the material time (2020). The Claimant's failure to establish likelihood of recurrence or sustained impairment led to the determination that she did not meet the statutory definition of disability.
Issues
- The Tribunal considered whether the Respondent's suspension and subsequent dismissal of the Claimant, following her March 2020 Facebook post, constituted discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. This required evaluating if the treatment was unfavourable because of her disability.
- The Tribunal examined if the Respondent's decision to discipline the Claimant for taking time off work following the February 2020 assault was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability. This was a key issue in determining potential discrimination under the Act.
- The Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant's mental impairment, specifically stress and anxiety with PTSD, met the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. This involved assessing whether the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, considering the evidence of medical records and the likelihood of the effects lasting at least 12 months or recurring.
Holdings
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant did not meet the full definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant failed to establish that her stress and anxiety with PTSD had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities for at least 12 months or was likely to last for 12 months at the material time (February 2020–March 2020). The Tribunal found her evidence unsupported by medical records, which showed gaps in treatment and no indication of continuous impairment. Additionally, the stress and anxiety were determined to be triggered by specific life events rather than being inherently long-term, and there was no evidence of recurrence likelihood or participation in therapy.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal evaluates whether the impairment's adverse effects are substantial (more than minor or trivial) and long-term, considering likelihood of recurrence based on the evidence available at the material time.
- The claimant is responsible for proving that she was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time(s).
Precedent Name
- SCA Packaging Ltd v. Boyle
- Sullivan v. Bury Street Capital Limited
- McDougall v. Richmond Adult Community College
- All Answers Ltd v. W and anor
- Igweike v. TSB Bank plc
- Woodrup v. London Borough of Southwark
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010
- Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
Employment Judge Truscott QC
Passage Text
- In Sullivan v. Bury Street Capital Limited [2020] IRLR 953, Choudhury P gave the following guidance at paragraph 38: 'it is irrelevant, for the purposes of determining whether there was a disability in 2013, that the adverse effect did recur in 2017; what matters is whether the available information in 2013 was such that it could be said that a recurrence of the effect could well happen.'
- The Tribunal considered whether, at the material period, the substantial adverse effect would be likely to last 12 months. When judging what would be likely to occur in the future, this must be judged on the basis of information available at the relevant period because 'whether an employer has committed a wrong ... must be judged on the basis of the evidence available at the time of the decision complained of': McDougall para 24.
- The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not established that she was disabled because of anxiety and stress because she had not established that it was likely that the stress and anxiety would last 12 months or longer. What she had established was that serious life events had occurred and when they did, they triggered short lived periods of substantial adverse effects.