Case 1403284/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Board v EDF Energy plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403284/2018
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Board
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine whether Mrs S Board was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times, identified as 27 January 2017 to 24 April 2018. The underlying claim form included unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect disability discrimination and indirect sex discrimination, but those substantive claims were not decided in this judgment.
The tribunal accepted Mrs Board's evidence, supported by GP records and other medical material, that she suffered from sinusitis and migraine before and during the material period. It found that the GP notes did not fully record the regularity or seriousness of her symptoms, including because she did not attend the GP on many occasions when symptoms occurred and did not need medical certificates for some short absences.
The tribunal found that migraine and sinusitis, individually and in combination, caused pain and debilitating symptoms on a regular basis. It accepted evidence that Mrs Board avoided bright lights, reflective surfaces and pressure on her head, wore polarised sunglasses most days, and that full attacks could affect her speech, memory, ability to converse, ability to drive, and ability to do ordinary activities such as shopping, cooking, socialising and workplace activities.
Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010 and Schedule 1, the tribunal concluded that Mrs Board had physical impairments of migraine and sinusitis from 2014 until after the end of her employment in April 2018; that the impairments had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities; that treatment and self-help reduced but did not remove that effect; and that the adverse effect was long-term or likely to recur. It therefore held that she was at all material times a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. No remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal determined that the Claimant was a disabled person at all material times within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The substantive claims, including discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect disability discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal, were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 2
- Rugamer v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd
- McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs
- Ministry of Defence v Hay
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- 2011 Guidance to the Act on Matters to Be Taken Into Account in Determining Questions Relating to Disability
- EHRC Employment Code
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.