Mr J Slack v Cineworld Cinemas — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 19 June 2026, Employment Judge Williams considered whether Mr Slack had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. His claims concerned his dismissal from a Team Member role at Cineworld Cinemas Ltd in March 2025 and events leading up to it. The tribunal concluded that he had not established disability. A separate judgment sent to the parties on 23 June 2026 dismissed his claims for direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.

The tribunal applied the requirement for a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The burden of proof rested with Mr Slack. The judge recognised that a formal autism diagnosis was not required and that the focus was on the condition's effects. However, Mr Slack first had to establish a mental impairment on the balance of probabilities. There was no expert report, GP evidence or other medical analysis addressing whether he had autism or another mental impairment.

The judge gave very little weight to online self-assessment results and unsigned lists of traits attributed to Mr Slack's parents. The tribunal considered his disability impact statement with caution because he said AI had condensed his life story, and the instructions given to the programme were unknown. It also considered his oral evidence, which described literal thinking, social anxiety and a dislike of talking on the telephone, but lacked specific examples of the everyday activities he found difficult. The judge found that the attributes described could have other explanations and could not, on the evidence, attribute them to a mental impairment.

The tribunal also considered anxiety, separately or in combination with the claimed autism. Internal emails referring to a need for reassurance and anxiety during suspension showed feelings of anxiety but did not prove a mental impairment. The fit note citing stress at work was insufficient to establish an impairment. Emails from 2013 referred to anxiety, depression and antidepressants, but supporting medical consultation records were not produced. The judge found no evidence connecting any impairment that might have existed then to the period covered by these claims.

The judge refused Mr Slack's request at the end of submissions to adjourn so that he could obtain medical evidence. Disability directions issued on 22 October 2025 had clearly required relevant medical evidence, and this was the third preliminary hearing. The tribunal found that he had had ample opportunity to obtain evidence supporting his case.

The unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct sex discrimination and direct discrimination on grounds of perceived disability claims remained for case management at a further preliminary hearing. The respondent's deposit-order and strike-out applications were not determined at this hearing and were listed for further consideration. The reasons record no monetary award.