Case 2304925/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E MacDonald of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304925/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mason
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr E MacDonald of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Langan brought disability discrimination complaints against Development Pathways Ltd, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment related to disability. This judgment was a preliminary hearing confined to whether she was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, said to involve depression and/or PTSD following the Haiti trip in early March 2020.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had significant symptoms during the material period, but it found that the onset of symptoms amounting to a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities was 13 May 2020. It rejected her evidence that the earlier period off work was due to Covid, and did not accept some of her evidence about her medical history and the timing and duration of the impairment. The Tribunal relied on the insurer form, GP records, sick notes, the Talk Together Bromley assessment and Dr Gibbons' report as showing depression and PTSD symptoms from mid-May 2020 until the end of employment.
Applying s.6(1) EqA 2010 and the long-term test in Schedule 1, with reference to Aderemi, McDougall, All Answers, Goodwin, Sussex Partnership, Woodrup, SCA Packaging and Igweike, the Tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that the substantial adverse effects were likely to last 12 months or more, or that recurrence could well happen on the evidence available at the material time. It therefore concluded that she was not disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant time. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that she was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, so the disability-based complaints were not determined on the merits in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.6(1) Equality Act 2010
- EqA Sch 1 para 5
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- All Answers Ltd v W and anor
- Goodwin v The Patent Office
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Igweike v TSB Bank plc
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.