Miss S Bewley, Counsel. For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing in a disability discrimination case issued on 23 July 2018. The tribunal heard only the question whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on heat sensitivity, and the earlier reliance on lupus-related arthritis and the knee condition had been withdrawn. The respondent denied that the claimant satisfied the statutory definition of disability.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment in the form of heat sensitivity. It found that the evidence, including the claimant's own account and the medical material before it, showed a long-term condition, with a history said to date back to childhood and an exacerbation after a Hepatitis B vaccination in or about 1989. The tribunal also accepted that the condition affected ordinary day-to-day activities, including concentration, decision-making, co-ordination, vision, socialising, travel, and the ability to remain in hot or enclosed environments.

Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Guidance on the Definition of Disability, the tribunal said it did not need to determine the precise cause of the heat sensitivity in order to decide whether there was an impairment. It held that coping strategies such as leaving a heated environment, wearing lighter clothing, or sitting near an open window did not remove the substantial adverse effect. It also noted that environmental conditions, including temperature, were relevant when assessing the impact of the impairment. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant is a disabled person by virtue of heat sensitivity. The full merits hearing remained listed for 17 to 19 February 2020.