Miss S Murray v Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service — 2023

Miss S Murray brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning the withdrawal of an offer of employment for the role of Support Grade Assistant with Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Disability status was not conceded, so the tribunal first determined whether she was a disabled person under s.6 Equality Act 2010 in the relevant period, said to be November 2024 to January 2025.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a fish allergy in 2004, when she tested moderately positive after eating fish and was advised not to consume fish or fish products. It also accepted that she later experienced episodes of swelling and tingling, including in March and August 2023. However, it preferred contemporaneous medical records to the claimant’s recollection where there was a difference, and noted that no medical evidence was produced to support the assertion that the allergy had become an airborne fish allergy. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been advised by a medical professional to avoid being in proximity to fish.

Applying the questions identified in Goodwin v Patent Office, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established the asserted impairment, namely an airborne fish allergy, and had not shown the necessary adverse effect on day-to-day activities caused by that impairment. It referred to Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd t/a Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd and ors in explaining that objective evidence was required where a claimant asserted that exposure would trigger an adverse reaction, and found that such evidence was absent here.

Because the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 in the relevant period, all three disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. No monetary award was made and the tribunal did not go on to determine the remaining discrimination issues or remedy questions.