Case 2202194/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S McWilliams v Angelo Gordon Europe LLP; and 6 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202194/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
8 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 5 October 2022, the tribunal dealt only with whether Ms McWilliams was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 from the date of her first allegation in May 2021 until her dismissal on 8 December 2021, by reason of asthma and oral allergy syndrome. The parties had agreed the amendment application, and the jurisdiction issue concerning respondents 6 and 7 was left for the final hearing. The claimant had brought claims of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment.
On asthma, the tribunal accepted that the claimant believed she had the condition and had repeat Ventolin prescriptions, but the medical records did not show an adult diagnosis being confirmed, a preventer inhaler, an acute asthma attack requiring treatment, or a recent GP review. It found no medical evidence of a deduced effect if she did not take Ventolin and concluded that any asthma, if present, had little or no adverse effect on normal day to day activities at the relevant times.
On oral allergy syndrome, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment and some historical allergy clinic diagnosis, but found that the skin prick tests did not show banana allergy, the RAST results were only weakly positive for banana and avocado, and more recent GP notes only recorded oral allergy syndrome after the claimant raised it. It did not accept that she had the significant symptoms she described, that she needed daily antihistamines, or that she had suffered anaphylactic shock. Applying the objective approach discussed in Primaz, and relying on Woodrup and Royal Bank of Scotland v Morris on deduced effects, the tribunal held that subjective belief alone was not enough. Taking asthma and oral allergy syndrome together, it found no more than a trivial adverse effect on normal day to day activities and held that she was not a disabled person at the relevant times.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Open preliminary hearing only: the tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times, by reason of asthma and oral allergy syndrome. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on Matters to be taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability (2011)
- Cruickshanks v VAW Motorcrest Limited
- Goodwin v Post Office
- Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd t/a Mcdonald's Restaurants Ltd
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Morris
- Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 regulation 4(2)
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.