In person (assisted by friend) For the v Respondent — 2024

Ms A Castillo Venzor worked for Princeton Biopartners Ltd from 5 October 2022 until she went off sick after a panic attack on 28 April 2023 and was later dismissed on 19 June 2023. This hearing was listed to decide a preliminary issue under section 6 Equality Act 2010: whether her mental health condition amounted to a disability. The respondent did not dispute that, from the panic attack onward, she had a mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities; the dispute was whether that effect was long-term.

The tribunal applied section 6, Schedule 1 paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010, together with the statutory guidance on coping strategies, environmental stress, and recurrence. It also referred to Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall, All Answers Limited v W, Morris v Lauren Richards Limited, Parnaby v Leicester City Council, Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary, Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited, and Abadeh v British Telecommunications plc. It considered the claimant’s earlier mental health episodes in 2011, 2016 and 2021, but found they were relatively short, self-contained events and did not amount to an underlying diagnosed condition showing a tendency for recurring symptoms.

The tribunal rejected the submission that the impairment had already lasted 12 months by the relevant date. It found that the impairment started with the panic attack on 28 April 2023, because before then the claimant was managing her day-to-day activities and work effectively. Looking at the position as at June 2023, and assuming she remained employed by the respondent, the tribunal found her depression, anxiety and PTSD could well continue for at least 12 months and could well recur if she recovered sufficiently to return to work. It took account of ongoing treatment, the continuing involvement of therapists in 2024, and the claimant’s concern about repercussions if she remained working for the respondent.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was disabled from 28 April 2023 by reason of severe depression, extreme anxiety or panic, low self-esteem and post-traumatic stress syndrome. No monetary remedy was awarded because the hearing determined disability status only and did not decide the substantive discrimination claims.