Peter Tamas v Impression Health and Support Limited — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 8 June 2026, Employment Judge Lloyd found that Peter Tamas was not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period and dismissed his disability discrimination claims against Impression Health and Support Limited. Tamas had been employed as a Support Worker since 10 August 2020. The agreed period for assessing disability was 8 August 2024 to 23 April 2025, when he presented his claim.

The respondent accepted that Tamas had a mental impairment. The disputed questions were whether it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. GP records described anxiety about going to work in November 2024, reduced appetite in December, and low mood and intermittent appetite problems in January 2025. Tamas said his mental health had deteriorated from August 2024, that he had reduced his working hours, and that recovering an overpayment had made his condition worse in November.

The tribunal found that the impairment did not substantially affect normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. Tamas had applied for another job in September 2024, travelled to Hungary in November and continued working until April 2025. He declined a sick note in January. The tribunal noted that he reported no effect on sleep or self-care during the relevant period and found the effects on appetite and concentration insubstantial and relatively minor.

The tribunal considered the effects of treatment, which had to be discounted when assessing disability. Tamas was prescribed propranolol in November 2024 and sertraline in January 2025. He reported that propranolol had not helped. Taking account of when sertraline began and the time it took to work, the tribunal found that medication had a limited effect during the relevant period. It concluded that, with or without medication, the impairment did not substantially affect his normal day-to-day activities.

On duration, the tribunal assessed the likely length of the effects at the dates of the alleged discrimination. It relied on the occupational health report of 15 May 2025, which described the condition as treatable and anticipated improvement with medical treatment. It found that substantial adverse effects were not likely to last at least 12 months at the relevant dates. An August 2025 report suggested disability provisions would likely apply if symptoms had lasted more than 12 months, but the judgment noted that this report postdated the relevant period by four months. Tamas therefore had not established disability under section 6, and his disability discrimination claims could not proceed. No monetary award was recorded.