Case 2416925/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Booth v Department for Work and Pensions — 2019
- Case reference
- 2416925/2018
- Decision date
- 17 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Booth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and whether her unfair dismissal claim could proceed in light of the effective date of termination. The claimant relied on anxiety and depression and said she had taken antidepressants since 2008, with her condition worsening under work pressure in 2018.
On the effective date of termination, the Tribunal found that the claimant gave notice in July 2018 and that the parties agreed during the notice period that her employment would end on 23 August 2018. The Tribunal held that a notice period could be extended by agreement in these circumstances, so the claimant had two years' service and the unfair dismissal claim was in time.
On disability, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory definition. The Tribunal noted limited medical evidence about the original 2008 diagnosis, limited evidence about the effect on normal day-to-day activities, and no evidence from which it could assess the deduced effects if the claimant were not taking medication. It therefore found that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only: the Tribunal found the effective date of termination was 23 August 2018, giving the claimant two years' service and meaning the unfair dismissal claim was in time. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal determined as a preliminary issue that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, because there was insufficient evidence of substantial long-term adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities, including deduced effects without medication. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- statutory code of practice on definition of disability
- more than minor or trivial
- could well happen
- deduced effects
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- SCA Packing Limited v Wall
- Goodwin v The Patent Office
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth
- Riordan v The War Office
- TBA Industrial Products Limited v Morland
- Mowlem Northern Limited v Watson
- Willetts v The Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Atrophy
- Palfrey v Transco
- Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury
- Wallis v Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited
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.