In person For the First v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing, conducted by Skype on 19 March 2020, to decide whether Mr W Santos Ramos was disabled within the meaning of s.6(1) Equality Act 2010 during the material time for his disability discrimination claims, which were pleaded under sections 13, 15, 20/21, 26 and 27. The tribunal had before it the claimant's evidence, his impact statement, GP notes and occupational health material. It recorded that he had been employed by Royal Mail Group Ltd until his dismissal on 21 February 2019.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced work-related stress and that by later records in 2019 there were references to anxiety and depression, but it found that the contemporaneous evidence during the material time pointed to work-related stress rather than a mental impairment. It rejected the claimant's evidence that he had agreed with his GP not to record anxiety and depression, and it considered that the GP and occupational health records did not support that account. The occupational health report in July 2018 was treated as consistent with a non-medical, work-related reaction.

On day-to-day effects, the tribunal found that the only effect clearly supported in the contemporaneous records was difficulty sleeping. It accepted that inability to sleep can amount to a substantial effect in principle, but held that on the evidence before it the effect had not lasted 12 months by 21 February 2019 and there was no basis to infer that it was likely to last 12 months or for the rest of the claimant's life. It did not accept the more serious effects described in the impact statement, including panic attacks, OCD, agoraphobia and suicidal thoughts, because they were not reflected in the GP notes and were not found to be reliable evidence of the claimant's condition during the material time.

The tribunal therefore concluded that Mr Santos Ramos was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the disability discrimination claims. The unfair dismissal claim was not determined in this judgment.