Case 3307553/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Platt, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307553/2023
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price. The
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms H Platt, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned a preliminary issue: whether the claimant met the definition of disability at the material time, from September 2022 to January 2023, with the condition of chronic back pain. The tribunal recorded that the claimant also brought other claims, including sex and disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, holiday pay and notice pay, but those merits were not decided in this judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had experienced back pain since 2017, had received medical treatment and pain medication over a number of years, and had described effects on normal day-to-day activities including typing, sitting for long periods, lifting, bending, leaning forward and sleep disturbance. It found that the claimant did not exaggerate the effects of her condition and that those effects were caused by chronic back pain.
The tribunal concluded that chronic back pain was a long-term condition and had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It therefore found that the claimant was a disabled person at the material time. The unfair dismissal claim and the claim of discrimination because of sexual orientation were dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that at the material time from September 2022 to January 2023 the claimant was a disabled person with chronic back pain. The merits of the disability discrimination claims were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the discrimination because of sexual orientation claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v The Patent Office 1999 IRLR 4
- Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd (t/a McDonald's Restaurants Ltd) 2022 IRLR 194
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007 ICR 1522
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.