Mr J Bolger v Pointmedia Creative Limited — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Mr J Bolger was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, being 3 February 2020. The tribunal applied the statutory definition and the approach in Goodwin v Patent Office, considering whether there was a mental impairment, whether it had an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, whether that effect was substantial, and whether it was long-term.

The tribunal accepted that by the end of 2017 at the latest the claimant had a mental impairment which continued until termination of employment. It found that the claimant's symptoms of anxiety, low mood and paranoia, taken together, amounted to a mental impairment and were not simply a reaction to adverse circumstances. The tribunal also found that the impairment adversely affected normal day-to-day activities because the claimant could not sleep properly, was tired during the day, struggled to concentrate and focus on tasks and conversations, and was regularly tearful at work.

In assessing substantial effect, the tribunal discounted the benefit of treatment under Schedule 1 paragraph 5 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted the claimant's evidence that without propranolol and citalopram from January 2018 onwards he would have had very severe anxiety and panic attacks, continuously low mood, persistent worry and fear about cancer and dying, significantly disturbed sleep, impaired concentration, and likely suicidal thoughts. The tribunal held that these effects were more than minor or trivial.

The tribunal further held that the effects were long-term because by February 2020 the claimant had experienced substantial adverse effects for over two years, from at least the end of 2017. It therefore concluded that Mr Bolger was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6(1) EqA at the relevant time. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.