In person For the v Mr Parmar - Solicitor — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal applied the four-stage approach referred to in Goodwin v Patents Office and Wigginton v Cowrie and others t/a Baxter international, and noted that disability must be assessed at the date of the alleged discriminatory act, with Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Limited and Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall cited on timing. The tribunal also recorded that the burden of proving disability was on the claimant.

The respondent accepted that the claimant had an impairment, namely type 2 diabetes, and accepted that it was long term. The dispute was whether it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The evidence recorded included the claimant's diagnosis on 26 February 2021, very high glucose levels, medication, blurry vision, increased need to urinate, fatigue, and loss of concentration. The respondent relied on the claimant's long commute and 11-hour shifts as the main source of tiredness, and submitted that a change of diet alone would not amount to a substantial adverse effect, referring to Metroline Travel Ltd v Soute.

The tribunal accepted that a change of diet alone would not be enough, but found that the need to eat at specific times and take medication at specific times, together with the claimant's other symptoms, did create a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It noted that the claimant experienced extreme fatigue and loss of concentration even when off work and not commuting, that his blood sugars were controlled by medication, and that without that medication they were likely to rise again. The tribunal also accepted that he restricted the areas he travelled to and found climbing stairs difficult. It therefore held that the claimant was a disabled person as defined in section 6 Equality Act 2010.