E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104695/2024 (V)5 Held on December 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr J Starrs v Represented by, Ms L MacDonald, Fiancée Mr D Hollands st and 1 other — 2024

Joe Starrs brought disability discrimination complaints arising from the termination of his employment with Northern Engineering & Welding Co Ltd. The hearing on 9 December 2024 was a preliminary hearing to determine whether he met the definition of disability under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010. It was common ground that he had worked for Newco as a Fabrication Welder from 23 October 2023 to 11 March 2024.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Starrs had myelopathy, a spinal cord condition caused by severe decompression sickness in 2021, and that he suffered pain. It considered the statutory definition in s.6, Schedule 1, and the 2011 Guidance, and it referred to Aderemi, Goodwin, MacDougall and Mahon when analysing the requirement to assess the position at the material time.

The tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities during the period of employment. It relied on the absence of any disclosure of backache or relevant health problems on the Newco health questionnaire, the absence of evidence that he told the employer he was suffering pain or taking medication, and GP records showing no contact for 16 months before employment or during employment. The first medical record after 29 June 2022 was on 18 April 2024, after dismissal, and the Curaleaf and Integro letters post-dated dismissal and did not show that medicinal cannabis was being taken during employment.

The tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence on when he started taking medicinal cannabis, found that he was not taking medicinal cannabis or other medication at the material time, and concluded that his impairment did not have an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at that time. It held that he was not a disabled person within s.6 of the 2010 Act, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination claim and dismissed it.