Case 4100139/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Mutter v Turning Point Scotland — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100139/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Mutter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis hearing determined only whether Miss S Mutter had the protected characteristic of disability for the relevant period, identified as 15 January 2018 to 15 March 2019. The claimant said her macromastia caused physical pain and psychological effects, and relied on her own evidence, GP records, a GP letter, and a report from Mr Romics. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had the physical impairment of macromastia and that it caused physical and psychological effects, but it found there was not sufficient evidence of a separate mental impairment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person during the relevant period for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability-based Equality Act claims were dismissed. The sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract and redundancy payment claims were left to proceed to a final hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 para 2(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 para 5 Equality Act 2010
- Statutory Guidance on the definition of disability (2011)
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- J v DLA Piper
- Veitch v Res Sky Group Ltd
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
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.
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.