Mr H Bayram (Lay Representative) For the v Mr J Scarborough-Lang (Litigation Consultant) — 2025

The tribunal considered whether the claimant was disabled at the material time for the purposes of her disability-based claim. It accepted that she underwent IVF treatment and experienced side effects, and that she suffered from work-related stress. However, it found no independent corroboration for psychological illness caused by IVF, no diagnosis of depression or anxiety, and no medical evidence linking the symptoms complained of to a qualifying impairment beyond stress and physical IVF side effects.

The tribunal found that the claimant's stress produced some adverse effects on day-to-day activities: reduced concentration after about two hours on a computer, sleep disturbance, and a greater likelihood of taking a wrong turn when driving for more than 90 minutes. It accepted that computer use, sleep and driving are normal day-to-day activities, but held that the concentration effect and the driving effect were not more than minor or trivial. It found the sleep disturbance was substantial, but only for an isolated period around March to May 2023.

Applying the Equality Act 2010 disability definition and authorities including Goodwin, SCA Packaging, McDougall and All Answers Ltd v W, the tribunal held that the substantial adverse effect did not last 12 months and was not likely to last 12 months when assessed at the material time. The claimant was therefore not disabled at the material time, and the disability harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal also noted that the outstanding application to amend the claim to add a reasonable adjustments complaint had not been served on the respondent and fell away in light of the disability finding.