Ms J Morris v Denholm Logistics UK Ltd — 2021

This was a reserved judgment from a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge B Hodgson sitting alone on 7 October 2021. The tribunal was asked to determine whether Ms J Morris was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, which the parties agreed ran from April 2020 to November 2020. She relied on mental impairments only, namely depression and anxiety, and not on any physical shoulder condition.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced stressors at work and in her personal life, and that she had reported crying, breakdowns and low mood. However, it found that the material before it did not establish a mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. It noted that the medical records supplied by the claimant ran only from May 2020, that a July 2020 GP entry recorded a depressive disorder but led to self-referral to SelfHelp rather than medication, and that after four counselling sessions SelfHelp recorded clinical recovery. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was first prescribed sertraline only in June 2021, outside the relevant period.

Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, the statutory meaning of "substantial" as more than minor or trivial, and the Schedule 1 long-term test, the tribunal concluded that any adverse effect was not long-term. It accepted that the claimant continued to perform her HGV driving duties throughout most of the relevant period, and it rejected her evidence that GP consultations had not been recorded in the medical notes. The tribunal also recorded that her own evidence placed more severe limitations on leaving the house and managing some activities in December 2020 or later.

The tribunal therefore held that Ms Morris was not a disabled person at the relevant time. As a consequence, the claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment were dismissed. The time issue and the remaining case management matters were left to a further preliminary hearing.