Case 6014553/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person (Ms Penny – Polish interpreter) v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014553/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hastie Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (Ms Penny – Polish interpreter)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 18 May 2026, the Tribunal considered whether Mr Sadowski was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times because of mental health or hormonal imbalance/suspected insulin resistance. It found that he was not disabled by either asserted impairment, whether considered separately or together.
The Tribunal accepted that Mr Sadowski had mental health issues at relevant times and that his depression caused a substantial adverse effect when he was unable to work between March and May 2024. It nevertheless found insufficient reliable or persuasive evidence that the impairment had previously produced a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities or had lasted, or was likely to last, for at least 12 months. The medical reports described a non-chronic depressive episode, and the Tribunal concluded that the long-term requirement was not satisfied.
The Tribunal found no supporting evidence for the asserted panic attacks and no evidence establishing difficulty with personal hygiene and self-care to the extent required by the statutory definition. It also found that the evidence concerning sleep, concentration, memory, organisational difficulties and lethargy did not establish a substantial and long-term adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other matters.
In relation to hormonal imbalance or suspected insulin resistance, the Tribunal noted abnormal results in August and November 2023 and a referral to an endocrinologist, but there was no detailed explanatory endocrinology report. It found no medical or other persuasive evidence connecting those matters to a substantial adverse effect on Mr Sadowski's day-to-day activities, and no evidence that any such effect was more than trivial or long term. The asserted headaches, postprandial sleepiness, impaired concentration and memory were not sufficiently supported by the evidence.
This judgment determined disability status only. It did not adjudicate the merits of the pleaded disability discrimination allegations or the other pleaded claims, for which a full merits hearing was listed in October 2026. No remedy or monetary award was determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to mental health or hormonal imbalance/suspected insulin resistance, separately or together, at the material times. The judgment did not determine or dismiss the merits of the pleaded disability discrimination allegations. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190 balance-of-probabilities burden
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302 four-limb disability test
- paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 long-term effect test
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] IRLR 763
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431, CA material-date test
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.