In person For the v Respondent — 2017

At a preliminary hearing in Watford before Employment Judge Henry, the tribunal considered whether Mr M Adan was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent conceded that he was disabled by dyslexia. The tribunal also considered whether he was disabled by reason of a right knee injury, depression, or a combination of those conditions.

After reviewing the claimant's evidence, GP and physiotherapy records, occupational health material, a psychiatric report, and an orthopaedic report, the tribunal found that the knee injury had caused pain and some limitation, but that the medical evidence did not support a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities for the relevant period. It also found that the depression was genuine, but that the psychiatric evidence did not show a substantial effect on day to day activities. The tribunal said the claimant's impact statement overstated the effects and was not borne out by the contemporaneous medical records.

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was a disabled person only by reason of dyslexia. It rejected disability status based on the knee injury, depression, or the composite of those impairments. No financial remedy was awarded because this was a preliminary issue determination only.