E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001702/2024 (V)5 Held on February 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr J Mitchell v Represented by, Mr R Clarke, Solicitor Bilfinger UK Limited — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing in a disability discrimination case brought by Mr J Mitchell against Bilfinger UK Limited. The issue for determination was whether he was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 between 10 May 2024 and 28 June 2024. The underlying complaint was that the respondent had refused to make a reasonable adjustment in relation to allowing him to wear a particular safety helmet while working offshore as a scaffolder.

The tribunal accepted Mr Mitchell as an honest witness and found that he had a long history of dermatitis and sensitivity to irritants. It recorded that his condition required a detailed daily regime, including specific soaps, creams, antihistamines, careful clothing choices, avoidance of sweat and other irritants, and regular washing of clothing and bedding. The tribunal also accepted that at work he had long-standing difficulty with standard hard hats because of irritation at his forehead, and that he had identified a removable-lining "Big Ben Hat" as a better option for managing that problem.

Applying section 6, Schedule 1 paragraphs 2 and 5, the EHRC Guidance, and the approach in Goodwin v Patent Office, the tribunal considered whether the condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It rejected the respondent's submission that the claimant's self-management regime meant he did not meet the definition of disability, and it found that the cumulative effect of the condition and the active daily precautions required to manage it were more than minor or trivial. The judge concluded that Mr Mitchell met the definition of a disabled person under the Act.

The judgment therefore resolved only the disability-status issue. It did not determine liability on the substantive reasonable-adjustments complaint, and no monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.