Mr G Kozakiewicz v Perenco UK Ltd — 2020

The tribunal heard a preliminary hearing on 30 June 2021 to determine whether Mr Kozakiewicz was disabled for Equality Act purposes at the time of his flexible working request and its refusal. It applied s6 Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, and the approach in authorities including J v DLA Piper UK LLP and Royal Bank of Scotland v Morris. The respondent accepted that the claimant's wife was disabled, but the claimant had to prove that he himself met the statutory definition if he wished to pursue claims based on his own disability.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved a physical or mental impairment that had a substantial long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period in January and February 2020. His GP records showed a first presentation for mental health issues on 18 July 2019, with sickness certification for being "feeling stressed", but no medication or therapy at that stage. The claimant's impact statement, served late, referred to stress and anxiety arising from his wife's condition, fatigue and lethargy for one or two days a week, and stopping shooting meetings and some work functions, but it did not give sufficient detail of the effect on normal day-to-day activities or duration.

Professor Fox's report dated 9 April 2021 diagnosed mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder and adult ADHD, but the tribunal found that it did not answer the relevant statutory questions with enough precision for the relevant period. It was not directed to the claimant's reliance on stress and anxiety in January and February 2020, and it did not establish the necessary substantial adverse effect or long-term element. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not disabled within s6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.

As a result, the claimant's own-disability indirect discrimination claim and failure to make reasonable adjustments claim were dismissed, and his own-disability direct discrimination claim was dismissed as well. The tribunal did not finally determine the direct discrimination claim based on his wife's disability, and instead indicated that limitation for that claim would be dealt with at a further preliminary hearing. No remedy was determined at this hearing.