Mr J McGuiness v Tripactions Limited and 1 other — 2022

This was a reserved judgment on a preliminary hearing in a case brought by Mr J McGuiness against Tripactions Limited and Mr Colin Doyle. The issue for determination was whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, 17 September 2021 to 21 February 2022. The substantive discrimination and unlawful deductions claims were not determined at this hearing, and the final hearing remained listed for 20 February 2023.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had ADHD, a mental impairment, and that the dispute was whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and whether that effect was long term. It found that the claimant’s concentration and organisation were affected, including with deadlines, note taking, data input into the CRM database, organising social life, and travel, especially air travel. The tribunal treated these as normal day-to-day activities and rejected any approach that would focus on the claimant’s overall work performance rather than the specific activities affected.

The tribunal gave weight to the medical evidence showing long-standing ADHD, continued prescriptions for Lisdexamfetamine, the claimant’s flexible use of that medication, and the referral for CBT. It found that medication assisted with symptom management, but that without it the effects on concentration and organisation would be more severe. It also found that the claimant’s time off work from December 2021 was concerned with work-related stress, anxiety and gastric symptoms rather than ADHD.

Applying the statutory definition and the guidance and authorities cited, the tribunal concluded that the ADHD had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It therefore held that the claimant was a disabled person for the material period. No further orders or directions were required at the end of the hearing.