Case 4104963/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104963/2024 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on November 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tracey Ball
This was a preliminary hearing in a disability discrimination claim brought by Tracey Ball against Insource Select Limited. The tribunal identified the material time as the period of employment from 4 March 2024 to 4 April 2024. The claimant had initially relied on ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder and IBS, but later confirmed that she would rely only on ADHD and ASD. The respondent did not admit that she was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal considered a 2020 autism assessment and a 2022 psychiatrist's report, together with the claimant's evidence. It found that she had been diagnosed with ASD and ADHD and that those conditions still had effect at the date of the hearing. The tribunal accepted that the effects were primarily on her ability to carry out tasks and relate to people, including needing explicit instructions, struggling to interpret interactions, and finding concentration, memorising information, and understanding instructions difficult.
The tribunal held that those effects were substantial, meaning more than trivial, and long-term. It therefore decided that the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The judgment records that the claimant's claim of discrimination on the grounds of disability was permitted to proceed. The respondent continued to dispute knowledge of disability and denied discrimination, but no merits determination or monetary remedy was made at this hearing.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The tribunal held that her conditions of ASD and ADHD met the definition of disability and that the disability discrimination claim could therefore proceed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
The 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.
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.