In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The Claimant was employed from 6 September 2021 as an Apprentice Parts Advisor on a fixed-term contract. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal claim was later withdrawn because he had less than two years' service at the date of dismissal.

The remaining claim was under s.15 Equality Act 2010, alleging discrimination arising from disability. The Respondent accepted that the Claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression throughout his employment and accepted that dismissal was because of sickness absence. The issue was whether the absences leading to dismissal, particularly the 8 days' absence in 2023, arose in consequence of his disability, and if so whether dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal also recorded the Respondent's alternative case that it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability at the material time, but it did not need to decide that point.

The tribunal found that the Claimant had 36 recorded absences during employment, but that most were for reasons other than anxiety and depression, including physical illness, family matters, and other personal issues. It accepted that two absences in 2022, on 25 March and 28 June, were on their face connected with stress or mental health, but held that the absence on 2 February 2023 arose from personal tasks, including a DNA test and arranging home improvements for his grandfather, rather than from disability. It also noted that when challenged in cross-examination the Claimant initially accepted that the great majority of his absences were unrelated to his disability.

The tribunal did not accept the Claimant's late evidence that some absences were in fact due to anxiety and depression but had been given another explanation at the time. It said this assertion was general, was not included in his witness statement, and was not tied to any specific absence. It also found no medical material supporting a causal link between the later absences and the disability, noting that the GP records did not show references to anxiety or depression after July 2022 before dismissal. The tribunal therefore concluded that the Claimant had not proved that his 2023 absences, or his absences in 2021 and 2022 to any material extent, arose in consequence of his anxiety and depression. As a result, the dismissal was not for something arising from disability and the discrimination claim was dismissed.