Case 3320506/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320506/2021
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a warehouse operative, brought disability discrimination proceedings after ACAS Early Conciliation. The tribunal clarified the case as including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability. It also noted that, although the claim form had ticked unfair dismissal, the claimant later confirmed he had not been dismissed and there was no unfair dismissal claim before the tribunal.
On disability, the tribunal found that the ear condition did not meet the definition in s.6 EqA 2010. The medical evidence suggested separate infections rather than an underlying recurring condition, and there was no sufficient basis to find a substantial and long-term adverse effect. The tribunal accepted that the May 2021 arm injury caused a substantial adverse effect at the time, but found the effect was not likely to last 12 months and would likely resolve within months. It also accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression from 19 April 2021.
As a result, the s.15 allegations based on the arm condition were struck out. The reasonable adjustments allegations based on the ear condition and the arm condition were also struck out. The remaining reasonable adjustments claim based on anxiety and depression could proceed, and the harassment claim could proceed only in respect of that accepted disability.
The direct discrimination claim was not finally determined at this hearing. The tribunal said it had little reasonable prospect of success because no comparator had been identified and the claimant said the treatment was because of sickness absence, which the tribunal considered more naturally to fit s.15. A deposit order of £50 was made after the tribunal considered the claimant's means, noting that he was not currently fit for work, his wife was the family's sole income, he had debts of at least £10,000, and he owned a house with a mortgage. The case remained listed for a final hearing on 7 to 11 August 2023.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | s.13 direct discrimination claim. The tribunal made a £50 deposit order after finding no comparator had been identified and that the claimant's explanation pointed more naturally to a s.15 claim. No final merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | s.15 discrimination arising from disability allegations based on the arm condition. They were struck out because the arm condition was not found to be a disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim at paragraph 5.3.1, based on the ear condition. It was struck out because the ear condition was not found to be a disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim at paragraph 5.3.2, based on the arm condition. It was struck out because the arm condition was not found to be a disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Remaining reasonable adjustments claim at paragraph 5.3.3, based on anxiety and depression. The tribunal said this claim could proceed to the final hearing. | Other | Disability |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £50
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Paterson v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
- All Answers Ltd v W
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Jansen Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Adams v Kingdon Services Group Ltd
- Cox v Adecco
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.