Case 1303696/2019 · Employment Tribunal
L Sewell v Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303696/2019
- Decision date
- 10 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Claimant
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Sewell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis reserved judgment dealt with a preliminary issue in proceedings in which the claimant had complained of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The question decided was whether she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period identified as 11 September 2018 to 12 April 2019. The tribunal held that she was, and recorded that she remained disabled beyond that date notwithstanding her limited attempt to return to work on a part-time basis in March 2019.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment, namely anxiety and depression, diagnosed by her GP in April 2018. It preferred the GP evidence, including reports dated 10 October 2019 and 15 February 2020, to the evidence of the respondent's occupational health adviser, Dr Basheer, who considered the problems to be organisational rather than medical. The tribunal found the claimant to be an honest and truthful witness and accepted her evidence about low mood, anxiety, panic attacks, reduced motivation and energy, poor concentration and recall, and difficulty carrying out everyday tasks such as self-care, housework, cooking, cleaning, dealing with letters, and social activities.
Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Goodwin v Patent Office, Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Aderemi v London & South Eastern Railway Limited, Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark, Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant and SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle, the tribunal concluded that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and that the effect had lasted, or was likely to last, for at least 12 months. It also considered the claimant's work-related stress, the fit notes, the evidence of correspondence and attendance at meetings, and the distinction between workplace problems and medical impairment, but found that the claimant's symptoms were not limited to ordinary reactions to adverse events.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 from April 2018 to 12 April 2019. The judgment did not determine liability for unfair dismissal or discrimination, and no remedy was decided. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1) Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Aderemi v London & South Eastern Railway Limited
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Rayner v Turning Point and Others
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.