Claimant v Bio-tiful Dairy Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the sickness absences relied upon as the 'something arising' from disability occurred when the claimant was not yet a disabled person for the purposes of s6 Equality Act. The claimant became disabled in mid-September 2023, but had returned to work by 4 September. Therefore, there could be no connection between the disability and the sickness absences.
The tribunal found that none of the five alleged acts of harassment met the statutory definition. Comments about being tired and requiring 125% effort were not related to disability and were unremarkable in a high-pressure environment. The 'lovely new talent' comment was made in general context, not to prefer others over the claimant. The 'adds cost' comment was not made as alleged. The delay in responding to the subject access request, while regrettable, did not violate dignity or create a hostile environment.
Facts
Claimant worked as Head of Innovation for a start-up dairy manufacturer from August 2022, working 4 days per week. Shortly after starting, she temporarily filled in as head of product, significantly increasing her workload. In June 2023, two of her dogs died triggering a mental health crisis linked to historical trauma. She had multiple periods of sickness absence from July to September 2023. Upon return, the respondent told her they did not think she fit the role and offered an exit. In late 2023, respondent decided to exit her via a redundancy consultation process, ultimately dismissing her in February 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found that while the claimant became a disabled person from mid-September 2023, her discrimination claims failed. The s15 claim failed because the sickness absences relied upon occurred before she became disabled, so could not arise from disability. The harassment claims failed because the alleged comments either were not related to disability, did not meet the statutory threshold of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, or were not made as alleged.
Practical note
For s15 claims, the 'something arising' must actually arise from the disability at a time when the claimant was protected under s6 - prior sickness absences that occurred before the point at which an impairment became long-term cannot satisfy this requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005354/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Innovation
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No