Miss E Ridley v Connell’s Residential — 2021

The claimant, Miss E Ridley, worked for Connell’s Residential from 18 September 2014 until her dismissal with effect from 4 April 2019. This hearing was not the final merits hearing. Its purpose was to decide whether, during the relevant period from November 2017 to 4 April 2019, she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the purposes of her disability discrimination claims.

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, her GP records, and later letters from her doctor. It accepted that she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression since 2011 and that she was experiencing mental health problems during the relevant period. The tribunal found that from November 2017 she had substantial difficulties with sleeping, attending work on time, caring for herself and her children, motivation, and general self-care. It also found that her difficulties were ongoing and worsened through 2018 and 2019.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant did not frequently or substantially raise mental health problems with the respondent at work, and that most absences were recorded for reasons other than mental ill-health, save for November 2017 and the fit note in March 2019. It also made findings about the claimant’s evidence and the medical notes, including that suicide risk was not reported to the GP on the occasions the claimant suggested, except for 27 March 2019. Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010, the Goodwin four-part test, Schedule 1 paragraph 2, and the authorities it cited including Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council and J v DLA Piper UK LLP, the tribunal held that the claimant’s anxiety and depression had a substantial adverse effect from November 2017 but did not satisfy the long-term requirement until 12 months had elapsed.

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 from 1 November 2018. The judgment did not determine liability for the underlying disability discrimination allegations or the unfair dismissal claim, and no remedy was awarded in this decision.