Case 2601659/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Murdin (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601659/2023
- Decision date
- 20 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Murdin (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the disability issue as a public preliminary hearing on 18 April 2024. The claimant relied on uterine fibroids said to have caused heavy bleeding, anaemia, weakness and other symptoms between March 2022 and 20 April 2023, but the tribunal preferred the contemporaneous medical records to the claimant's disability impact statement. It found the symptoms began in June 2022, that the anaemia was an acute condition which was generally resolved by 23 December 2022, and that the claimant did not have the dizziness, palpitations or broader restrictions on shopping, driving, gym use or social activity that she described.
On the facts found, the tribunal accepted only that the claimant was reluctant to go outside during heavy bleeding and experienced some weakness and tiredness associated with anaemia. It held that this was not a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities: the claimant was still able to work, manage her children and carry on ordinary activities, and the tribunal considered any reluctance to go out to be minor rather than more than minor or trivial. It also found no long-term effect, noting that the bleeding resolved with injections in January 2023 and that the uterus was removed on 7 May 2023.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not disabled during her employment for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010. Her disability complaints, pleaded as direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, were dismissed and the final hearing listed was vacated. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at public preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled during her employment within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at public preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled during her employment within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at public preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled during her employment within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant
- Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Ahmed v Metroline Travel Ltd
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- All Answers Ltd v W
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.