Case 3303018/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Crew (Father) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303018/2020
- Decision date
- 7 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Crew (Father) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time for her disability discrimination claims. The claimant relied on partial deafness, difficulty speaking, migraines, photophobia or light sensitivity, extreme fatigue, flushes and palpitations, anxiety and depression, and argued that these should be considered cumulatively.
The tribunal considered separate periods between January 2019 and the termination date of 6 December 2019. It found that the hearing loss lasted about 10 weeks and was not shown to have a substantial or long-term adverse effect at the relevant time. For later periods, it accepted that the claimant experienced symptoms including migraines, photophobia and fatigue, and that some symptoms had a substantial impact, but found the evidence did not show they were likely to be long term.
The tribunal concluded that there was no likelihood of substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities lasting 12 months, and therefore the claimant did not meet the statutory definition of disabled during her employment. Her disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The reserved judgment determined only whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time. The tribunal found she was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance B1
- Guidance B7
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.