Claimant v London Residential Healthcare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing focused solely on the disability issue. The constructive dismissal claim was not determined at this hearing.
This claim for payments related to absences from work was not determined at this preliminary hearing, which focused on the disability question.
The tribunal found that the claimant's sensitivity to odours did not constitute a physical or mental impairment under s.6 EqA. The tribunal concluded that a normal aversion to foul odours is not an impairment but rather a proper sensory response, and there was no substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. Without a disability, the claimant cannot pursue disability discrimination claims.
This claim necessarily failed because the tribunal determined the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, meaning no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose.
Facts
The claimant worked as a housekeeper in a care home from October 2021 to February 2024. She claimed to have a hypersensitivity to odours causing headaches and gagging. In November 2023, she raised a grievance after being told she could not wear a face mask at work. She produced a GP letter supporting her wearing a mask, but provided no medical records despite being ordered to do so. The respondent argued her reactions were normal responses to foul odours encountered in a care home environment.
Decision
The tribunal determined that the claimant's sensitivity to odours did not constitute a physical or mental impairment under the Equality Act 2010. The judge found that normal aversion to foul smells is a proper sensory function, not an impairment, and there was no substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The claimant therefore was not disabled and could not pursue discrimination claims.
Practical note
A normal sensory response to unpleasant stimuli, even if pronounced, will not constitute a disability without medical evidence of an underlying impairment that substantially affects normal day-to-day activities.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301820/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Housekeeper
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No