Ms S Muhammad v Fortune UK Limited — 2022

This was a reserved preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Henderson sitting alone on 31 October 2022. The claimant, Ms S Muhammad, had worked for Fortune UK Limited as a manufacturing technician from 1 December 2016 until 5 February 2020. The tribunal had to decide whether, at the material time, she had a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010, and if so whether the respondent knew or ought to have known of it. The claimant described anxiety, depression and PTSD, but she accepted there was no medical evidence for PTSD.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment in the form of anxiety and depressive disorder, supported by GP notes, but it did not accept that the evidence showed the requisite substantial and long-term adverse effect. It found the claimant's account inconsistent as to when symptoms began and how long they lasted, and noted that her evidence about difficulty shopping, cooking, planning, socialising, self-care and concentration was often vague on timing and frequency. The tribunal also relied on the medical records, which referred to panic attacks, problems on trains and around people, struggling with work, tearfulness, reduced appetite and sleep difficulty, but did not support the broader effects described in the witness evidence.

On knowledge, the tribunal found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a disability. It accepted the evidence of the respondent's witnesses that they knew the claimant had stress, occasional panic attacks and personal difficulties, and that they made allowances for her as a single mother, but they did not know she had an underlying impairment. The tribunal found the texts produced by the claimant were not enough to alert the respondent to a disability, and it did not accept that a letter about childhood abuse had been sent. It cited Seccombe v Reed In Partnership Limited EA-2019-00478-00 in reaching the alternative knowledge finding.

Because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, it did not need to consider her application to amend the claim to include harassment on the ground of disability. The judgment therefore resolved the preliminary disability issue against the claimant and left no monetary remedy to determine in this decision.