Mr M Rafiq v Represented by: Mr G Bathgate - Solicitor The City Of Edinburgh Council — 2024

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue on whether Mr Rafiq was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the period July 2022 to June 2023. The case was brought in proceedings where he complained under ss.13, 15 and 20 EA 2010. The tribunal found that he had worked as a Housing Property Surveyor since 29 January 2018 and had been absent from work since 25 June 2019. It accepted that from around April 2019 to June 2023 he experienced anxiety, panic, disturbed sleep, reduced concentration, changes in eating and weight, and withdrawal from social interaction.

The tribunal accepted Mr Rafiq's evidence about those symptoms and their effects, and it rejected the employer's submission that gaps in the GP records undermined his account. It found that the GP notes were brief summaries rather than full records of everything discussed, and it accepted that some symptoms were not repeatedly raised at appointments because he had come to live with them or tried self-management. It also accepted that periods off Sertraline did not mean the symptoms had resolved, because he was trying to see whether the medication caused side effects and found that the symptoms recurred when he stopped it.

Applying the Goodwin four-stage approach, and taking account of the authorities cited in the judgment including J v DLA Piper UK LLP and Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council, the tribunal held that by July 2022 the claimant's sleep, reading, concentration, cooking and social interaction were adversely affected in a way that was more than minor or trivial. It found those effects had already lasted for around three years by the relevant date and were therefore long-term. The tribunal concluded that he was suffering from a mental impairment of some kind and was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 EA 2010 at the material times. The judgment did not decide the merits of the underlying discrimination complaints and instead directed that a further preliminary hearing on case management be listed.