Natalja Solovjevskaja v Iron Mountain (UK) Services Ltd — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 20 July 2026, Employment Judge J Lewis KC considered whether Natalja Solovjevskaja was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the times relevant to her claims against Iron Mountain (UK) Services Limited. The tribunal found that bilateral De Quervain’s tenosynovitis with intersection syndrome amounted to a disability from mid-July 2024, but not before. Generalised anxiety disorder and panic attacks did not meet the statutory definition at the material times.

Solovjevskaja worked as a Scanning and Administration Assistant from 1 June 2022 until 23 February 2025. Her role involved repeated hand and wrist movements and productivity targets. The tribunal distinguished her earlier right-wrist ganglion cyst from the later tenosynovitis. An occupational health report of 8 May 2024 recorded no substantial effect on daily activities, and the claimant did not dispute that assessment. The tribunal accepted that stronger, more continuous pain and substantial effects developed by mid-July 2024. Both wrists were affected, she wore braces by the end of July, and the tenosynovitis diagnosis was recorded in a physiotherapist’s letter dated 30 August 2024.

The tribunal accepted that wrist pain and reduced grip made preparing food, carrying hot drinks, cleaning, shopping, writing and typing difficult. Tasks sometimes required breaks after short periods, and sleep was also affected. Anxiety added to these restrictions, including through fear of dropping hot items. Continuing to work and sometimes meeting targets did not disprove a substantial adverse effect: activities could still qualify where they were performed with difficulty. The tribunal also rejected the argument that undertaking a university course undermined her account, particularly because that proposition had not been put to her in cross-examination.

Applying All Answers Ltd v W, the tribunal assessed likely duration at the time of each alleged discriminatory act, without hindsight. It found that the wrist-related effects could well last at least 12 months. It relied on the condition not being mild, the absence of a clear recovery period in the NHS guidance cited in the grievance response, and the physiotherapist’s proposed review after a year. It did not accept that the physiotherapist had predicted that the condition would last a year. For the later part of employment, the persistence of the effects despite months away from work provided further support.

For anxiety, the tribunal accepted a substantial adverse effect on daily activities from the serious panic attack on 29 August 2024, when Solovjevskaja was signed off work. The accepted effects included difficulties with concentration, memory, communication, sleep and ordinary routines. However, the evidence did not establish that these effects could well last at least 12 months or were likely to recur. Later medical reports relied on symptoms persisting after the relevant events and did not provide a prognosis from the material times. The tribunal rejected reliance on her later resignation to predict that the effects would end, but found that she had nevertheless not discharged the burden of proving the long-term requirement. It therefore did not need to decide whether the anxiety amounted to a mental impairment beyond a reaction to adverse circumstances at work.