Case 2304647/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Noopur Masson v Novo Nordisk Limited & Claire Parsons — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304647/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Noopur Masson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether Mrs Masson was disabled at the material times from August 2021 to 17 October 2022. She relied on long covid and chronic fatigue syndrome, and the tribunal found that she had those conditions and that they adversely affected her health.
The tribunal focused on symptoms clearly attributable to long covid, including breathlessness, fatigue and brain fog, while declining to attribute other symptoms to long covid or chronic fatigue syndrome on the available evidence. It found that the effects were more than minor or trivial and affected activities such as breathing, walking, exercising and driving.
The tribunal concluded that the long-term condition was also met because, on the medical evidence available at the time, the impairment could well last for 12 months or more. It found that the test of disability was met from 17 August 2021, so the complaints would proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue judgment only. The tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled at the material times; the substantive disability discrimination complaints were to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office 1999 ICR 302
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd 2022 IRLR 159
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd 2009 ICR 1056
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.