In person For the v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary issue judgment in which the tribunal first determined whether Ms Kaler had a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on Asperger's Syndrome and also referred to depression and anxiety. The tribunal noted that there was no diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, no expert medical evidence, and limited contemporaneous medical evidence covering the relevant employment period. It also recorded that the claim for automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing had earlier been dismissed upon withdrawal at a preliminary hearing on 24 July 2018.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced mental health difficulties, but it found that the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the material period. It relied in part on a January 2017 wellbeing assessment recording moderate depression and mild anxiety, followed by the claimant reporting that she felt much better, securing new employment, and declining further treatment. The tribunal also noted that the claimant described herself as "high functioning" and that she had worked in teaching to a high standard.

In assessing the alleged effects of the condition, the tribunal placed weight on three employment references describing the claimant's communication and interpersonal skills as outstanding or excellent. It found that she could write emails, make phone calls, interact with children, staff and parents, use a computer, prepare written documents, and carry out teaching-related tasks such as lesson planning and timetabling. The tribunal accepted that she found social elements such as office politics and small talk difficult, but it held that these were not the kind of normal day-to-day activities relied on for the disability definition.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that she met the legal definition of disability during the period 1 January 2017 to early January 2018. As a result, the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.