Ms L Davidson v Represented by: Mr S Smith - Solicitor E&M Manufacturing Ltd — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing by video conference on 21 December 2021 before Employment Judge R Gall. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms Davidson and her mother on the question whether Ms Davidson was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts, which were said to have occurred in February and March 2020. It also dealt with whether further detail of the claimant's disability description should be permitted and with directions about a possible deposit order in respect of the direct discrimination claim.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Davidson had been affected by depression since 2009 or 2010. It found that she had been under regular medical review, had received psychiatric input and counselling, and had taken a range of medication over time, including Mirtazapine, Propranolol, Zolpidem, Zopiclone, Citalopram, Venlafaxine, Diazepam and beta blockers. It accepted that her condition fluctuated, with more serious episodes in 2010 and 2017, and that when unwell she became withdrawn, irritable, slept badly, did not eat properly, neglected washing and dressing, lost weight, and relied on her parents, particularly her mother, for support.

Applying section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Goodwin, McDougall, J v DLA Piper, College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs, Ministry of Defence v Hay, Walker, and SCA Packaging v Boyle, the tribunal held that depression was a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It treated the recurring nature of the symptoms, occurring about three or four times a year over a period of years, as satisfying the long-term element because recurrence could well happen. The tribunal therefore found that Ms Davidson was disabled at the relevant time.

The tribunal also held that the additional wording sought by the claimant in relation to the effects of her condition did not amount to a new amendment, but rather to further and better particulars of the disability description. It ordered further submissions on the proposed deposit order and on the claimant's position regarding the italicised parts of the document submitted on 24 March 2021. No award was made, and the underlying discrimination claim was not finally determined in this judgment.