Case 3302622/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302622/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 30 August 2023 before Employment Judge M Warren, the tribunal decided whether Miss L O'Mara was a disabled person for the purposes of her disability discrimination claim during her employment as a Personal Assistant with Insight Financial Associates Limited between 13 May 2022 and 8 February 2023. The issue was whether her depression amounted to a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal accepted that she had been diagnosed by her GP with depression, mixed anxiety and depressive disorder on 4 June 2018 and that she had taken Citalopram throughout the relevant period. It accepted her evidence that the condition affected her ability to get out of bed, leave the house, socialise, wash and dress, concentrate, retain information, and carry out household tasks and work. Although the tribunal had concerns about some parts of her evidence, including the counselling evidence, the account of repeat prescriptions, and the work history shown on her CV, it found her overall evidence credible.
Applying the Equality Act definition, the tribunal held that she had a mental impairment, that the effect on her day-to-day activities was substantial, and that the impairment was long-term because it had lasted since at least 2018. It concluded that Miss O'Mara was a disabled person for the relevant period. The judgment did not decide liability on the substantive discrimination claim and did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of anxiety and depression for the relevant employment period, but it did not determine the substantive discrimination claim or any remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
- Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce [2001] IRLR 19
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.