Mr N Shah, Solicitor v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, who started work for the respondent on 30 October 2017 and was dismissed on 3 April 2018 during his probation, alleged that the dismissal arose from disability discrimination. The tribunal identified the relevant date for the disability question as 3 April 2018 and considered anxiety/depression and fibromyalgia, both of which it accepted the claimant had on that date.

The tribunal found that the claimant was an unsatisfactory witness and gave limited weight to parts of his evidence because it was not well supported by the medical records and lacked specificity as to timing and effect. It accepted that he had longstanding low mood and later a diagnosis of depression, and that fibromyalgia was under consideration and then diagnosed in spring 2018, but it did not accept his evidence that he was bed bound or that his symptoms were shown by the records to be as severe as claimed.

Applying the disability tests separately and cumulatively, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that either condition had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities at the relevant date. It also found no basis for concluding that any relevant effects were long term or likely to recur. On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act and dismissed the claim. It cited Cruickshanks v VAW Motorcrest Limited, Goodwin v Patent Office, Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall, and Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary in its reasoning.