Case 2417995/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Patricia Jones v Emcor UK — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417995/2020
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Patricia Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged disability discrimination relying on PTSD, including direct discrimination and harassment in relation to a 21 May 2020 incident and a linked complaint arising from dismissal and notice/holiday pay issues ending on 1 June 2021. The tribunal accepted that she suffered from PTSD during the relevant period but held that she had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that it had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, with or without medication.
The tribunal placed weight on the limited medical evidence for the relevant period, the claimant's redactions of medical records, and its findings that her evidence about day-to-day effects and non-compliance with case management orders was unreliable. It noted evidence that she worked in different places, travelled, attended interviews and went out of the house, and found no satisfactory medical evidence about deduced effects if she stopped medication.
Because the claimant was not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination complaints and dismissed them. It also stated that the first claim's direct discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; the proposed section 15 complaint in the linked second claim would not have been permitted to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 in case 2417995/2020, concerning the alleged 21 May 2020 incident. Dismissed because the claimant was not disabled under section 6 in the relevant period; the tribunal also concluded it was out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 in case 2417995/2020, relying on disability/PTSD. Dismissed because the claimant was not disabled under section 6 in the relevant period; the tribunal also concluded it was out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Linked section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint in case 2414111/2021 concerning dismissal and notice/holiday pay issues. The tribunal's primary judgment dismissed the disability discrimination complaints for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not disabled; in the alternative, it said the amendment would not have been allowed and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
21 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act (Disability) Regulations 2010
- EqA 2010 disability guidance
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Millar v ICR
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- EHRC Employment Code Appendix 1
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules
- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student's Union
- Cox v Adecco and ors
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.