ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8000503/2024 issued following Open Preliminary Hearing Held on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th November 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr D Challenger v Panton McLeod Ltd — 2024

At the open preliminary hearing on 15 November 2024, the tribunal determined whether the claimant was a disabled person for the period 8 to 26 January 2024 by reason of ADHD and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). It held that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving disability by reason of ADHD: the only documentary material referring to ADHD was a July 2019 clinic record, which the tribunal found insufficient to establish a diagnosis or the basis for any diagnosis, and insufficient to show a long-term and substantial adverse effect within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

By contrast, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been diagnosed with ASD on 24 October 2017 and that his GP had recognised that diagnosis in the questionnaire produced for the hearing. It found ASD to be a lifelong condition and accepted the claimant's oral evidence that, in January 2024, the condition substantially affected day-to-day activities, including washing, dressing, travel to appointments, shopping, and working for long periods without becoming anxious and potentially aggressive. On that basis, the tribunal found that he was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time by reason of ASD.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the claimant's complaints insofar as they were founded on ADHD, but allowed the residual disability discrimination complaints to proceed to a final hearing limited to disability arising from ASD. No monetary remedy was determined at this hearing.