Case 3302533/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Skrzyniarz v WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited Heard: Watford by CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302533/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Skrzyniarz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Skrzyniarz was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, identified by the tribunal as 22 November 2022 to 10 January 2023. The claimant said an abdominal muscle strain sustained while working had persisted and meant he needed light duties; the respondent disputed that the evidence showed a long-term substantial adverse effect.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a muscle strain in early 2021 and that he had fit notes for around four weeks, during which he was accommodated on amended duties in the nut room. It also accepted that the condition could cause short-term difficulty, including problems with stairs and sleep, but found the evidence about duration and continuing impact inconsistent and unreliable. The tribunal noted confusion in the claimant’s evidence about dates and found that the medical documents did not establish an ongoing muscle strain at the relevant time.
The tribunal placed weight on the absence of fit notes after early 2021, the lack of documentary support for continued restrictions, and evidence that by December 2021 there were other medical issues in play, including gastric problems and a suspected gastroduodenal ulcer. It also noted the GP letter referred to intermittent abdominal pain since 2012 with no confirmed diagnosis, and that the claimant had not shown that his ongoing symptoms were attributable to the muscle strain rather than other conditions.
On the evidence as a whole, the tribunal found that any substantial adverse effect from the muscle strain was short term and had resolved well before the relevant dates. It concluded that by 22 November 2022 the claimant had substantially recovered and did not meet the definition of disabled. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed; the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was left to be case-managed for a later final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The tribunal found he was not disabled and dismissed the disability discrimination claim as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431 CA
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1
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.