Case 6011201/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J May (solicitor) For the v A Williams (solicitor, Peninsula) — 2022
- Case reference
- 6011201/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J May (solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered disability status before the substantive hearing because the claim was only one of disability discrimination and the respondent had not conceded status. It found that the claimant had a mental impairment in the form of anxiety, specifically diagnosed as Generalised Anxiety Disorder by her GP on 29 August 2023.
The tribunal considered the claimant's evidence about social withdrawal, fatigue, household chores, self-care and missed appointments, alongside GP records, WhatsApp messages, hospital discharge information, and evidence from Ms Chapman. It found that the claimant's anxiety had an impact on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities, but that the impact was minimal and did not reach the standard of more than minor or trivial.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010. As the claim was only one of disability discrimination, it was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010, and dismissed the disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s6(1) Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302 EAT
- S.212(1) Equality Act 2010
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.