Case 2301021/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Tahmina Sharmeen v Plumbridge Medical Centre and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301021/2025
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Representation
- Venue
- London South and
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Tahmina Sharmeen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Taylor on 10 June 2025. The only issues decided were whether Ms Tahmina Sharmeen was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 and whether Plumbridge Medical Centre and Dr Nausheen Jilani had the required knowledge of any disability at the relevant time. The tribunal recorded that the claimant relied on anxiety, depression and PTSD symptoms, but found that the complaint of disability discrimination failed at the threshold stage.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had reported feeling anxious to her GP in June 2022 and that an Oxleas initial assessment on 13 July 2022 recorded severe low mood and severe anxiety. It also accepted that by December 2023 the claimant's medical records referred to anxiety and depression, and that fit notes in 2024 referred to anxiety and depression. However, it found that the claimant's mental health impairment of anxiety and depression only ran from 15 December 2023 to October 2024, and that at the relevant date it had not lasted for 12 months. The tribunal also found there was insufficient evidence that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and it found no evidence that PTSD had been established as a formal diagnosis for 12 months at the relevant date.
On knowledge, the tribunal held that the respondent could not have known in 2022 that the claimant had a mental impairment, because she had been expressing confidence in moving from part-time to full-time work and had not disclosed a health condition. It found that the first time the respondent was notified by the claimant's GP of a mental health impairment was the fit note dated 1 February 2024. The tribunal therefore concluded that, at the relevant date in October 2024, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known that the claimant was a disabled person. The claim of disability discrimination was dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant did not meet the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, and therefore dismissed the disability discrimination complaint. The reasons state that, as a result, complaints framed under sections 13, 15, 21, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 insofar as they depended on disability also fell away. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraphs 2, 5 and 8 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- Leonard v South Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris
- Ginn v Tesco Stores Ltd
- College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs
- Mr Ian McCubbin v Perth & Kinross Council
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.