Case 3305565/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Moses For the v Ms Denton (counsel, instructed by Rradar) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305565/2020
- Decision date
- 28 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Moses For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bartlett, sitting alone, to decide whether Ms Greenwood had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. By the time of the hearing, the respondents had conceded that hyperthyroidism, depression and acute stress and anxiety were disabilities, so the only issue was whether the claimant's aneurysm, and its aftermath, amounted to a disability. The claimant said the aneurysm surgery in 2008 left her with short-term memory and concentration problems, and also with episodes of loss of consciousness when vomiting.
The tribunal did not accept that the aneurysm itself was the relevant impairment. It found that the aneurysm had been reabsorbed and that what had to be considered were the after-effects of the operation and treatment. It also found that the claimant's vasovagal episodes were not a disability, because they only occurred when she vomited and were therefore too infrequent to have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
On the evidence, the tribunal found only limited pre-termination references to memory and concentration difficulties in 2008 and 2013, but accepted that the claimant's short-term memory and concentration problems were present from at least early June 2019 and became more significant once she was working full-time with the first respondent. It accepted that those difficulties affected normal day-to-day activities such as cooking, feeding dogs, following verbal instructions and conversations, and that the interference was substantial because it was more than minor or trivial.
The tribunal held that the impairment was long-term because it was expected to last for many years and was managed by coping strategies rather than cure or suppression. It therefore found that, at the material time, the claimant had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment did not decide liability on the underlying discrimination or unfair dismissal claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of short-term memory and concentration problems, but the judgment did not determine the substantive discrimination or dismissal claims. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- paragraph C3 Guidance under the EqA 2010
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.