Ms C Culley v Buckinghamshire County Council — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Postle to decide whether Ms C Culley was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on PTSD, anxiety and depression said to have been diagnosed in January 2016, and gave evidence about stress-related symptoms, counselling, medication and periods when she said she struggled with normal day-to-day activities. The respondent disputed that she met the statutory definition.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced stress and anxiety in 2015 and considered the medical material, including counselling records, occupational health evidence and GP notes. It noted that the counselling record showed improvement by late 2016, the GP records were generally positive through 2017 and 2018, and by May 2019 the claimant was seeing a counsellor and reported better sleep and looking for new work. The tribunal also referred to the legal approach to disability, including the need for a physical or mental impairment, a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and a long-term effect, with substantial meaning more than minor or trivial.

For 2019, the tribunal placed weight on the claimant's own evidence that she administered medication and injections for her adult son when he was bed-bound after a January 2019 operation, and that she was teaching gym classes three evenings a week. It said that evidence did not sit with her account that she could not get out of bed, was in a permanent state of anxiety and had a loss of concentration. The tribunal also noted limited GP contact after June 2019, no significant mental health attendances between June and November 2019, and no referral to a specialist for PTSD or related symptoms.

On balance, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that she had a mental impairment in 2019, and even if she did, it had not been shown to have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal further held that any adverse effect was at most for a few months in early 2019 and was therefore not long term. It therefore found that Ms Culley did not have a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010.