Case 1602420/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Skie Howard v Pullman Rail Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602420/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff ET via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Skie Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The hearing was listed to determine whether, at the material time from 1 November 2023 to 4 March 2024, the claimant had a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The respondent accepted that the claimant had impingement syndrome, that it affected normal day-to-day activities, and that the effect was substantial. The disputed issue was whether the adverse effect was long-term. The tribunal considered the contemporaneous medical evidence, including the podiatrist's planned six-month review and occupational health evidence that further treatment was expected if the current treatment did not correct the problem.
The tribunal concluded that, as at March 2024, there was a real possibility that the claimant's injury could well have lasted for 12 months. It therefore found that the claimant did have a disability as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined the preliminary issue of whether the claimant had a disability at the material time. It did not determine liability for the discrimination arising from disability or reasonable adjustments claims. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four questions
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Singapore Airlines Ltd
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
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.