Case 4101358/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101358/2020 (V)5 Held remotely on January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr D McGhee v Represented by: Mr C Howie – Solicitor Cornerstone Community Care — 2021
- Case reference
- 4101358/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101358/2020 (V)5 Held remotely on January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr D McGhee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing held remotely on 11 January 2021 to determine disability status in the claimant's disability discrimination claim. The respondent accepted that the claimant had been diagnosed with autism/Asperger's syndrome, but disputed that the condition had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant employment period, 20 August 2019 to 11 November 2019.
The tribunal heard from the claimant and accepted his evidence as credible. It found that his impairment affected him through panic attacks and difficulties with shopping, conversation, making and sustaining friendships, socialising, concentrating on documents, reading, and using public transport. The judge treated these matters as adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities and noted that some were reflected in the Guidance on the definition of disability.
The tribunal also considered the effect of coping strategies and medication. It held that the threshold for "substantial" is "more than minor or trivial" and found the effects of the claimant's mental impairment to be substantial, both individually and cumulatively. Applying paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that without citalopram he would not be able to function.
The tribunal therefore found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The judgment did not determine the underlying discrimination complaint, and it directed that the case should proceed to a further closed preliminary hearing for case management and for arranging the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination claim could proceed to a further hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6
- Equality Act 2010 section 212 ('substantial' means more than minor or trivial)
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 5
- EHRC Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)
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.