Case 1402356/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Smith (Counsel) For the v Ms N Gyane (Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402356/2020
- Decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Smith (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter as a preliminary issue and determined whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 between July 2018 and December 2020, on the basis of alleged depression and hypothyroidism. It accepted that the medical records referred to minor depression, sub-clinical hypothyroidism, tiredness, irritability and work-related stress, and that there had been one outburst in July 2018 together with a period of difficulty with social interaction until September 2018. However, the claimant’s own statements were broad and lacked specific examples of what he could not do or could only do with difficulty in day-to-day life.
Applying section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, together with the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities for a long-term period. It noted that the claimant was signed off work, but the sick notes referred to work-related stress, and the tribunal was not satisfied that the absences were caused by depression or hypothyroidism rather than dissatisfaction with the work situation. It also found that the effect of the July 2018 outburst and reduced social interaction did not establish a 12-month substantial adverse effect, and that there was insufficient evidence that any relevant effects could well have lasted that long.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not disabled at any material time. On that basis, the claims of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and harassment were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure had already been withdrawn on 16 June 2021, and the automatically unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn during the hearing on 28 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim; dismissed because the tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim; dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure; withdrawn on 16 June 2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures; withdrawn during the hearing on 28 June 2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on the Definition of Disability
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- Ministry of Defence v Hay
- Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd
- All Answers Ltd v W & R
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.
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.