In person v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal dealt only with the threshold question whether the claimant, Mr S Egan, was disabled by reason of workplace situational anxiety within section 6 Equality Act 2010. Employment Judge Ayre heard evidence from the claimant, his former line manager Helen Renshaw, and HR Specialist Aman Hundal, and considered GP and occupational health records covering the period from January 2020 to December 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaint was limited to disability discrimination, and that if disability was not made out the entirety of the claim would fail.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced work-related stress and anxiety after the P66 investigation and the removal of that work, and that the medical evidence consistently linked his symptoms to the workplace situation. It also accepted that the claimant had difficulty sleeping at times, with some fatigue and concentration problems, but found that the evidence showed a reaction to adverse events at work rather than an underlying mental health condition. The tribunal relied on the absence of any history of mental illness, the lack of medication or treatment, the claimant’s own evidence that the problem was situational, and the occupational health opinions that the issue was rooted in the work dispute rather than a medical condition.

Applying the Equality Act definition of disability, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have a mental impairment for the purposes of section 6. It considered the case law and guidance cited by the parties, including the approach in Herry and J v DLA Piper, and found that this was a case of entrenched reaction to workplace circumstances rather than mental impairment. It also found that the adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities was not substantial: although there were bad days, the claimant was able to work part-time, write and respond to detailed emails, pursue his grievance, drive, use a computer, wash and dress himself, and engage in leisure activities such as golf and DIY. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had some adverse impact, but held that it was no more than minor or trivial.

Because the claimant had not shown a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal did not need to decide finally whether the effect was long-term, although it said that requirement would have been satisfied on the facts. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded.