Case 4102575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Aneta Drozdek v Interpreter Mr Rozycki Transcal Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102575/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Aneta Drozdek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The claimant, Miss Aneta Drozdek, said she had disabilities arising from depression/anxiety and from weakness in both wrists. The respondent led no evidence. The tribunal heard the claimant's evidence and considered her GP records, physiotherapy records and other papers. It found her generally credible and reliable, but was not satisfied that she had shown a mental impairment amounting to a disability in relation to depression or anxiety.
On the mental health issue, the tribunal accepted that the records showed stress at work, low mood, anxiety and upset at various points, including references in 2017, 2018, 2021 and a fit note in April 2024 referring to depressed mood and stress at work. However, it found there were long gaps in the records, no formal assessment or diagnosis of depression, and that the GP notes described the difficulties as situational. The tribunal was not convinced that the claimant had demonstrated a long-term disability from depression/anxiety, and it treated the final fit note and first antidepressant prescription in 2024 as insufficient to prove an earlier pre-existing disability.
On the wrists and hands, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had continuing pain, numbness and weakness in both hands after carpal tunnel operations in 2016 and 2017. It noted the GP record in June 2023 referring to likely Renaud's Phenomena on both hands and accepted that the symptoms affected ordinary activities such as shopping and household tasks, with the claimant managing by taking painkillers, limiting what she carried and getting help from her son. It held that the adverse effect was substantial, more than trivial, and therefore that she was disabled from June 2023. The tribunal could not confidently fix an earlier start date on the balance of probabilities.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant failed to demonstrate that she was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 in relation to any depression or depressive/anxiety condition. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from June 2023 by symptoms of pain, numbness and loss of grip in both hands, but it did not fix an earlier date on the evidence. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010]
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
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.