Atack Ms Jessica Ann Skinner v Represented by: Ms L Neil Solicitor David Adamson & Partners Ltd. — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Ms Jessica Ann Skinner was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 in relation to her pending disability discrimination claims under sections 15 and 20. The respondent accepted that she had a physical impairment and that it was long-term; the live issue was whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The earlier unfair dismissal complaint was noted as no longer being pursued because she did not have sufficient length of service.

The tribunal accepted the claimant as a credible witness and accepted the evidence of Mr Imran Liaquat, consultant neurosurgeon, about the nature and effect of the recurrent L5/S1 disc prolapse and sciatica. It found that the impairment affected walking, washing, dressing, travelling, cooking, getting into and out of cars, standing and bending. It also treated the work-related tasks of bending to carry out damp testing and standing on surveys as normal day-to-day activities for the purposes of the statutory test, relying on Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush.

Applying section 6(1), section 212(1), the 2011 guidance and the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Employment, and referring to authorities including Goodwin v Patent Office, Condappa v Newham Health Care Trust and Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the tribunal held that the effects were more than minor or trivial. It found that the claimant could carry out activities only by using coping strategies to avoid pain, and that this meant the adverse effect was substantial. The tribunal therefore concluded that she was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and directed that the case be listed for a final hearing before a full tribunal.