Case 3305646/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Langi v OH Parsons LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305646/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Langi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 April 2021, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto considered whether Mr S Langi was a disabled person for the purposes of his Equality Act claim and whether any time-limit or strike-out issue arose. The claimant relied on a back injury, hypertension, and initially anxiety and depression, but he abandoned anxiety and depression as a disability basis during the hearing. The tribunal found that the claimant did have a back injury and that it affected day-to-day activities, but the evidence did not show that the impairment was likely to last for at least 12 months at the relevant time, which was the date of dismissal, 20 January 2020. On that basis, the back injury did not meet the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time on either the back injury or hypertension relied on. Anxiety and depression were abandoned during the hearing as a disability basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused to strike out the public interest disclosure complaints at this stage. It made no final merits determination, but said the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and raised causation concerns. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.