Mr Slater v The Sempere Group Limited — 2025

The claimant brought a discrimination claim based on disability, alleging that after he told the respondent he was struggling with his mental health he received no support, was dismissed, and his grievance was not properly addressed. The tribunal only determined whether he was disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, which it took to be 22 September 2023 to 30 November 2023. It accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment by reason of anxiety and/or depression during that period, but the burden remained on him to show that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been prescribed sertraline before he started work, that GP records showed sertraline for anxiety/depression on 26 July 2023 and an increased dose on 16 August 2023, and that the claimant contacted Steps2change on 17 August 2023. It found that the diagnosis of depression was recent as at 22 September 2023, likely having been made between 17 August and 19 September 2023. It also accepted that on 22 September 2023 the claimant told Mr Greatrix that he was struggling with his mental health and had been diagnosed with depression, and that he attended a low mood course from 2 October 2023 to 23 October 2023.

The tribunal nevertheless concluded that the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities at the relevant time. It relied on the contemporaneous records showing that he was okay at work, was better with company, went to the gym, saw his daughter, and was able to speak to people on the phone. The tribunal treated the claimant’s broader evidence about possible future deterioration, social withdrawal, and difficulty managing daily life as generic possibilities rather than proof of actual substantial adverse effect during the period in issue.

The tribunal also found that the condition had not lasted for 12 months by 30 November 2023, and that there was no evidence it was likely to last 12 months or recur. It found the symptoms had begun around March 2023 and were linked to a recent business failure, so there was no sufficient basis to treat the condition as long-term within the statutory definition. The claimant was therefore not disabled at the relevant time, and the disability discrimination claim was dismissed.