Katie (Robin) Gatt v London Brunel International College RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 3 February 2025, Employment Judge Reindorf KC considered whether Katie (Robin) Gatt was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression at the relevant times for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The claim form had alleged constructive unfair dismissal, direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect sex discrimination, victimisation and harassment. The Respondent had already accepted by email on 19 June 2024 that adenomyosis was a disability at the relevant times; this ruling concerned anxiety and depression only.

The tribunal reviewed the limited evidence from 2016 and 2022/2023, including references to a mood disorder and depression, a CBT appointment letter dated 9 November 2022, a counselling offer dated 19 April 2023, medical records recording reactive depression (situational) and adjustment disorder in January 2023, a fit note for 6 to 13 February 2023 for adjustment disorder (work related stress), an OH report of 7 February 2023, a GAD score of 20 on 23 June 2023, and sertraline prescribed from January 2024. It applied the burden of proof in Morgan v Staffordshire University and the four-stage approach in Goodwin v Patent Office.

The tribunal found the evidence insufficient to show that the claimant had a mental impairment within s.6 EqA at the relevant time. It said the evidence pointed considerably more strongly to an adverse reaction to life events than to anything akin to a clinical illness. It also held there was insufficient evidence that any impairment was long term or that its effects on normal day-to-day activities were substantial, and it therefore concluded that the claimant had not shown they were disabled by reason of anxiety and depression.

On time limits, the tribunal did not decide whether the complaints of disability-related harassment in late 2022 and early 2023 were out of time. It held that, without hearing the evidence, it could not determine whether those complaints were sufficiently separate from the other matters complained of, and it left the limitation question for the final hearing together with any other remaining time points.