Mr Donald Geddes v Calmac Ferries Limited — 2022

At this open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Tinnion considered whether Mr Donald Geddes’ adjustment disorder was a disability for the period 11 February 2021 to 6 August 2021, and whether two amendment applications should be allowed. The Tribunal accepted that he had an adjustment disorder impairment and treated it as long-term, but held that he was not disabled because the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period.

The Tribunal relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence, including the lack of GP notes for the relevant period and the absence of oral evidence from a treating doctor or consultant. It noted that Mr Geddes had worked in the same post since 2009, that there was no suggestion his adjustment disorder had worsened before 2021, and that he could not identify a specific work activity he was unable to do because of that impairment. The Tribunal also found no adequate evidence that his shopping or socialising difficulties were caused by adjustment disorder rather than visual impairment or other factors.

The Tribunal therefore held that the substantial adverse effect test in s.6 Equality Act 2010 was not satisfied, so Mr Geddes was not disabled by reason of adjustment disorder during the relevant period. It applied the statutory definition of disability, the Schedule 1 long-term requirement, and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Cruickshank, All Answers Ltd v W, Aderemi, SCA Packaging, Woodrup, and J v DLA Piper.

On amendment, the Tribunal refused leave to add a historic reasonable-adjustments claim about advanced rotas for epilepsy. It held that the proposed claim, said to arise from an alleged breach on 22 November 2019, was out of time and that the balance of prejudice favoured refusing the amendment. A separate proposed amendment concerning a risk assessment for eyesight/partial vision had already been allowed by consent, so there was no merits ruling on that point.