Mr A Greenwood v HMSHost UK Limited — 2019

The claimant, a chef employed from 21 March 2011 until July 2018, raised unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination and harassment claims. This hearing was confined to the preliminary issue of disability, with the relevant time agreed as 11 to 16 July 2018. The claimant relied only on Type II diabetes and hypertension, having ceased to rely on cellulitis and on stress, anxiety and depression.

Employment Judge Phil Allen set out section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1 paragraph 2, and the Secretary of State guidance. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s submission that it should retrospectively discount disability status because the claimant might previously have taken reasonable lifestyle or diet steps. It held that the reasonableness language in the guidance was relevant to forward-looking questions about likely future effects or treatment, not to undo an existing disability finding on the facts.

On hypertension, the tribunal found little evidence of a substantial adverse effect. The claimant’s evidence and Dr Bodansky’s report referred mainly to intermittent dizziness, occasional need to leave the kitchen if it was warm, and limited impact on playing with nieces; the claimant accepted that the effect was not substantial. There was no evidence about the effect of medication, so the tribunal did not find that hypertension would have met the statutory test without treatment.

On Type II diabetes, the tribunal accepted evidence that the condition had affected the claimant over several years before July 2018, including difficulty walking more than about 25 metres, climbing stairs, getting dressed, and doing household chores, together with fatigue and reduced ability to socialise. Dr Bodansky’s report supported that conclusion. The tribunal found that the condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the material time, and that later improvement from early 2019 did not change that finding. No remedy was addressed because the judgment was limited to the preliminary disability issue.