Case 3321192/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321192/2021
- Decision date
- 14 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after her dismissal with effect from 22 June 2021 for refusing to take PCR and lateral flow tests under the respondent's Covid-19 testing procedures. This preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether she had a disability within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had Mixed Connective Tissue Disease and that before 2015 it had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. On the evidence before it, including occupational health and rheumatology material, the tribunal found that the substantial adverse effect had ceased at some point between 2015 and 2017 and was not shown to be likely to recur in April to June 2021.
Because the claimant was not found to have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaint and struck it out. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue judgment only. The tribunal determined disability status under s.6 Equality Act 2010 and struck out the disability discrimination complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The unfair dismissal claim was mentioned as brought but was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 2 of schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.