Case 6005354/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005354/2024
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms M Pilfold, Mr R Baber
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant had severe anxiety including PTSD and depression, and that she was a disabled person protected under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from mid-September 2023 until at least the last alleged act. It also found that the respondent had constructive notice of disability from mid-September 2023.
The section 15 claim failed because the claimant confirmed that the matter said to arise from disability was her sickness absences. The tribunal found those absences occurred before she was a disabled person for section 6 purposes, and a phased return after 4 September 2023 was not sickness absence.
The harassment claim also failed. Some alleged matters were found not to be related to disability, not proved as alleged, or not capable in context of violating dignity or creating the proscribed environment required by section 26.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled from mid-September 2023 and that the respondent had constructive notice from then, but the sickness absences relied on occurred before she was disabled for section 6 purposes and could not arise in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal considered alleged incorrect August pay, October comments about effort and covering work, a comment about recruiting new talent, an alleged comment that the claimant added costs, and delay in responding to a subject access request, and found the statutory definition was not met. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Disability: Equality Act 2010 - Guidance on Matters to Be Taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability
- SCA Packaging v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15
- A Ltd v Z 2020 ICR 199
- Gallacher v Abellio Scotrail Ltd EAT 0027/19
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe 2016 ICR 305
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh 2018 IRLR 1090
- British Telecommunications plc v Robertson EAT 0229/20
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 2015 IRLR 893
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal 2009 ICR 724
- Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v Englisch EAT 0316/10
- Pemberton v Inwood 2018 ICR 1291
- Land Registry v Grant 2011 ICR 1390
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes UKEAT/0179/13/JOJ
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
How we got this data
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.