Miss C Okwereogu v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust — 2022

This reserved judgment concerned a preliminary hearing to decide whether Miss C Okwereogu was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged acts of discrimination, and whether Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of disability. The claimant relied on irritable bowel syndrome, chronic neck and back pain, and repetitive strain injury. The tribunal recorded that the substantive allegations included direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make adjustments, harassment and victimisation, but those merits issues were not decided in this judgment.

The tribunal found that the claimant had IBS from 2017 and throughout the relevant period. It accepted that the condition caused diarrhoea with intermittent constipation and other symptoms, affected toilet use, travel, socialising and sleep, and had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Because the condition had lasted more than 12 months by the start of employment and continued during employment, the tribunal held that the claimant was disabled by reason of IBS from 9 September 2019 to 21 March 2021. It also held that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of that disability.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's chronic back and neck pain began in 2014 and continued throughout employment. It accepted that the condition affected her ability to sit, stand and sleep in a way that was more than minor or trivial, noting occupational health recommendations for breaks, micro-breaks and an orthopaedic chair. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled by reason of chronic back and neck pain from 9 September 2019 to 21 March 2021, and that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of that disability.

For RSI, the tribunal found that the claimant had a previous episode in late 2017 or early 2018, but was not disabled by reason of RSI when she started employment and the respondent did not then know or have reason to know of such a disability. It found that RSI recurred from 17 September 2020, affected typing, mouse use, lifting and gripping, and could well recur after two episodes and occupational health recommendations for adjustments. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was disabled by reason of RSI from 17 September 2020 to 21 March 2021, and that the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know from 17 September 2020. No remedy was awarded because the judgment decided only the preliminary disability and knowledge issues, and stated that the disability discrimination claim could proceed.