Case 2401398/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E McGrath v Lifeways Community Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401398/2021
- Decision date
- 10 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that the respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments by requiring him to wear a face mask on 4 September 2020. He had initially relied on PTSD, anxiety and asthma, but withdrew the assertion that PTSD and anxiety were disabilities at the material date. The preliminary issue was whether he was disabled for the purposes of Equality Act 2010 section 6.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had breathlessness from at least September 2018 and that, as at 4 September 2020, he had a long-term physical impairment, namely mild asthma causing breathlessness. It did not find a formal diagnosis of COPD, and found only an indication in the medical records that breathlessness could be suggestive of that condition.
The tribunal found that the breathlessness did not have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It accepted that he had difficulty walking upstairs, but found he was not precluded from doing so and could carry out activities including using stairs at work, assisting clients with laundry and cleaning, and walking with clients to local shops. The tribunal concluded that he was not disabled under Equality Act 2010 section 6 at the material date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The pleaded claim was a reasonable adjustments claim under Equality Act 2010 section 21. At a public preliminary hearing the tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled under Equality Act 2010 section 6 at the material date; the judgment did not go on to determine the substantive reasonable adjustments issue. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6
- Equality Act 2010 section 21
- Equality Act 2010 section 212(1)
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1)
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1)
- Government Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- EHRC Employment Code Appendix 1
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Ministry of Defence v Hay
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Elliott v Dorset County Council
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
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.