Case 1600711/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Davies v Environtec Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600711/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 April 2022, the tribunal decided whether Mr Davies was a disabled person for Equality Act 2010 purposes during the agreed relevant period from 14 September 2020 to 11 April 2021, the date of his resignation. The tribunal found that the respondent's face covering policy began on or around 14 September 2020 following Welsh Government rules, not in August 2020 as the claimant had suggested.
On asthma, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had chronic childhood asthma, but it rejected that he suffered from severe asthma. It relied on the 2017 health questionnaire, the limited use of preventative medication, and GP records showing routine prescription of a reliever inhaler. It found that the asthma did not have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and that the evidence did not show a materially greater effect without treatment.
On anxiety, the tribunal accepted brief periods of anxiety in 2016 and a further episode in 2018, but found no sufficient evidence that those periods had a substantial effect lasting, or likely to last, 12 months. For the 2020 to 2021 period, it found that the claimant's symptoms were more likely a reaction to the workplace dispute, disciplinary process, and grievance arising after the February 2021 incident, rather than to face-covering requirements. It concluded that the anxiety, whether alone or in combination with asthma, did not amount to a disability because any effect on day-to-day activities was not shown to be substantial or long term. No remedy was determined in this judgment, which dealt only with the disability-status issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person by reason of asthma, anxiety, or both, during 14 September 2020 to 11 April 2021. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 EqA 2010
- substantial adverse effect
- long-term effect
- normal day-to-day activities
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd
- Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Morris
- 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.
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.