E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000038/20235 Held at Aberdeen on November 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie X v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing at Aberdeen before Employment Judge N M Hosie on 13 November 2023. The claimant worked as a Security Guard from 10 April 2022 and was summarily dismissed on 19 December 2022. The only issue determined in this judgment was whether he was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010, in relation to Type 2 Diabetes and Glaucoma, and whether his disability discrimination claim could proceed.

On the diabetes issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had Type 2 Diabetes and that he used a meal plan, but it did not accept his evidence about medication and likely effects as reliable. The judge found there was no clear medical evidence of adverse effects or of what would happen if the treatment were stopped, and noted that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving disability. The tribunal referred to the need to ignore the effect of treatment or correction under Schedule 1, paragraph 5, and to authorities including Goodwin, Aderemi, Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute and Woodrup.

On glaucoma, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had glaucoma in his left eye and used Monopost drops daily, with regular hospital appointments. However, it found there was no evidence of adverse effects at the relevant time, no clear medical evidence of deduced effects, and that any deterioration in vision would be progressive rather than immediate. The tribunal also noted that the claimant wore spectacles and that correctable effects were relevant to the Schedule 1 analysis. It concluded that the adverse effect was not shown to be substantial, meaning more than minor or trivial.

Because the claimant was found not to be a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that his disability discrimination claim fell to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal stated that the application to amend would be dealt with separately in another note, so no further substantive remedy or compensation was determined in this judgment.