Case 3202678/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ali Askor v EE Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202678/2019
- Decision date
- 8 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ali Askor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the Claimant's congenital heart disease, described as VSD and connected heart condition, amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant relied on discrimination claims under sections 15, 20, 21 and 26, and the agreed issue was whether the VSD/Heart condition was a statutory disability.
The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had a physical impairment, including residual effects of the repaired VSD and a right bundle branch block. It also accepted that the Claimant experienced breathlessness on exertion, including when climbing stairs, attending the gym and playing amateur sport, and that those effects would have been more than minor or trivial if caused by the pleaded impairment.
The tribunal found there was no evidence linking the breathlessness, stress in high-pressure situations, sleep issues, diet restrictions, or fainting to the VSD/Heart condition. The available medical evidence instead recorded mild asthma as a diagnosis relevant to breathlessness. The tribunal concluded that the Claimant had not shown that the VSD/Heart condition had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, and therefore had not established disability under section 6. It gave the Claimant 21 days to explain why the claims should not be struck out or to withdraw them, but did not make that final strike-out decision in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined only whether the Claimant's VSD/Heart condition amounted to a disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that it did not. The judgment stated that the section 15 and reasonable adjustments claims could not succeed as pleaded, but did not finally strike out or dismiss the claims in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The Claimant had brought a section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim related to disability. The tribunal noted that it was not essential for harassment that the Claimant demonstrate he is disabled, and did not finally determine the harassment claim in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Morgan Stanley International v Prskavec
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.