Briggs v Scottish Ambulance Service Board — 2022

This was an open preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the agreed relevant period, 27 July 2020 to 24 February 2021. The claimant relied on stress, anxiety and depression. The tribunal accepted that she had been absent from work with what her GP described as work-related stress, and that she had experienced symptoms affecting sleep and, for a few weeks after 25 August 2020, her ability to leave the house and carry out ordinary activities such as shopping, walking the dog and taking her children to activities.

The tribunal found, however, that the evidence did not establish a mental impairment throughout the relevant period. It noted that the claimant was not diagnosed by her GP as having anxiety or depression at any time, and that she was only prescribed a short course of anti-depressant/anxiety medication in November 2020. The tribunal considered that the claimant was at times prone to exaggeration and that parts of her account were inconsistent with the contemporaneous medical and occupational health records. It also found it more likely than not that she did not have any significant or sustained thoughts of self-harm.

Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010 and the guidance on substantial and long-term effect, the tribunal held that any substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities was relatively short-lived and had improved by January 2021. It accepted that the claimant had some difficulty with ordinary activities for a period, but found that the effect was not shown to have lasted, or been likely to last or recur, for 12 months. The occupational health reports were noted, but they did not change the tribunal's conclusion that the statutory definition was not met.

The tribunal therefore held that at no time during the relevant period did the claimant have a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed.