Mr K Watt v CPS — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr K Watt was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the period from early September 2020 to 23 December 2020. The tribunal applied the statutory definition in the Equality Act 2010 and Schedule 1, and referred to Goodwin v Patent Office, Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd, and Parnaby v Leicester City Council in setting out the approach to substantial and long-term adverse effect.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had long-standing asthma and that, although his asthma was generally controlled with medication during the material time, the deduced effects without medication were substantial and long term. It accepted his evidence that without inhalers he would struggle with basic activities such as breathing, walking, climbing stairs and cooking. It also accepted that his asthma was treated throughout the material time with reliever and preventer medication, so paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 applied. The tribunal therefore found that he was a disabled person by reason of asthma.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had suffered an asthma attack on 30 September 2020, finding instead that the GP record of 1 October 2020 recorded a panic attack and work-related stress, not an asthma episode. It also found that he reported on 15 October 2020 that he had been using inhalers during lockdown and had been advised to take the correct dosage, but did not attend for asthma-related matters after that date before his employment ended.

On anxiety and depression, the tribunal accepted that symptoms began in late September or early October 2020 and affected sleep, motivation, concentration, social interaction, and getting up and dressing. It accepted that the claimant had GP contacts on 12 October, 22 October, 6 November and 16 November 2020, and that he was diagnosed with anxiety with depression and referred onwards. However, because the effects had been present for less than three months by the termination date, there was no prior history, limited prognosis evidence, and the claimant linked the symptoms to the workplace grievance and the respondent's actions, the tribunal was not satisfied that the long-term limb was met. It therefore dismissed the anxiety and depression aspect of the disability issue.