Mr I Pettifer (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a warehouse operative employed by TJX UK from 28 October 2018 until her resignation on 27 November 2020, relied on three alleged conditions: a caesarean scar, back/shoulder injury, and anxiety. This hearing was listed only to decide whether she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal applied the statutory definition and the Schedule 1 concepts of substantial and long-term adverse effect, together with the EHRC disability guidance and the burden-of-proof authorities cited in the reasons.

On the medical evidence, the tribunal treated the physical complaints as separate matters rather than a single underlying impairment. It found the caesarean-scar complaints were first recorded in 2019, were intermittent, attracted no ongoing treatment, and were not shown to continue beyond December 2019. The shoulder and back issues were also treated as distinct: the left shoulder pain in 2019 resolved after a normal scan, the right shoulder and back complaints appeared in 2020, and the evidence did not show a diagnosed underlying condition linking the different symptoms. The tribunal accepted that the claimant experienced pain and some restriction when lifting heavy items, but did not accept that this amounted to a long-term disabling impairment.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion on anxiety. The GP notes showed work-related stress and anxiety from June 2019, then a further period of symptoms from June 2020 until resignation, but the tribunal found the condition was expressly recorded as work related and there was no expectation it would continue beyond the employment relationship. It also relied on the occupational health report of 11 September 2020, which said she was fit for work subject to short-term temporary adjustments and recorded her as fit to stand, walk, bend, lift and twist.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s impact statement as overstated when compared with the contemporaneous GP notes and occupational health evidence. It found she had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and had not established a long-term debilitating condition. Accordingly, it held that she was not disabled at any material time and dismissed the disability discrimination claims. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was expressly left unaffected for the final hearing.