Elisabeth Lenders v Kindergarten Forest Hill Ltd — 2024

The Claimant brought a disability discrimination claim arising from alleged acts between April and July 2022. The Tribunal first considered whether she met the definition of a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at that time. It accepted that she suffered from post-concussion syndrome and found that this had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities, including difficulty showering or cooking at first, ongoing difficulty using screens for significant periods, inability to take part in sports, and difficulty communicating with friends.

The claim failed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the effects of the impairment were long-term during the relevant period. Applying the statutory test, and noting that the burden of proving disability status was on the Claimant, the Tribunal considered whether the effects had lasted or were likely to last at least 12 months. It accepted that the injury began in March 2022, so the effects had not yet lasted 12 months by April to July 2022, and then examined whether they were likely to last that long.

On prognosis, the Tribunal found the medical evidence to be limited. It noted that the fit notes were for relatively short periods, that the occupational health report of 6 October 2022 said the typical duration of symptoms was 'a few weeks to a few months', and that the Claimant could not point to substantive evidence showing a longer prognosis. The Tribunal therefore found that it had not been shown that the effects of the condition were likely to be long-term, even using the wider meaning of 'likely' relied on from SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle. It also found no medical evidence that the effects were likely to recur.

The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant did not meet the definition of a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. It noted that she may have met that definition later, but that was not the period under consideration. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.