In person For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary-issue judgment on whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the period November 2019 to December 2021. The claimant had worked for the respondent from 4 April 2016 until 12 December 2021 and relied on anxiety and depression, described in the evidence as reactive depression and mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. The tribunal accepted that she had a mental impairment and that it was long term, but the remaining question was whether it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal noted that the GP records were sparse and that the respondent relied on the limited medical evidence and on the fact that the claimant was able to start new employment immediately after her resignation. It also considered the authorities and guidance cited, including Woodrup v London Borough of Southward, McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College, Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and paragraph B7 of the Equality Act guidance. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that workplace stressors exacerbated her condition, that her usual coping mechanisms had failed, and that she had to self-isolate from colleagues, friends and family to keep functioning at work.

The tribunal found that, during the relevant period, the claimant segregated herself from others, relied on her adult daughter for household chores, and devoted spare time to self-care measures in order to maintain sleep and continue working. Although there was an absence of detailed medical evidence, the tribunal accepted her explanation that she preferred to manage her condition without regular medical intervention. On that basis it concluded that her mental health condition had a substantial adverse impact on normal day-to-day activities and that she was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 for the material period.