Case 1801048/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The University of Sheffield — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801048/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought disability discrimination complaints, including a reasonable adjustments complaint said to arise from an alleged practice of "gaslighting" and from the respondent’s sickness absence management procedure. At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Maidment was deciding only whether the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010, and if so from when. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, his wife H, and Dr Fieldman, together with medical records and an occupational health report.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced a developing mental health impairment linked to work, with memory problems, loss of concentration, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety and reduced engagement in normal social activity. It found no basis on the evidence to conclude that he suffered from PTSD, but held that by 26 September 2019 he was suffering from work-related stress and associated anxiety which had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities and was likely to last at least 12 months. The tribunal said the impairment had not started on 26 September 2019, but it could not fix an earlier disability date because the chronology before then was not sufficiently clear; it did, however, accept that the substantial effect had built up before that date and probably from at least August 2019, with some signs earlier.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 as at and from 26 September 2019, by reason of work-related stress and associated anxiety; it did not conclude that PTSD was proved. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth (burden on claimant)
- J v DLA Piper LLP approach
- Rayner v Turning Point
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle ('could well happen')
- Tesco Stores Limited v Tennant
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.