Cases6004804/2025

Claimant v Maritime and Coastguard Agency

23 October 2025Before Employment Judge C H O'RourkeBristolremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing determined only that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 due to anxiety disorder. The substantive discrimination claims relating to the respondent's conduct of a professional examination and subsequent treatment have not yet been heard on their merits.

Facts

The claimant, a Senior Maritime Operations Officer employed since January 2020, brought disability discrimination claims relating to the respondent's conduct of a professional examination and subsequent treatment. He had suffered from anxiety since 2012, which worsened following a 2017 accident causing post-concussion syndrome and retrograde amnesia. The relevant period was September 2023 to February 2025. The respondent disputed that the impairment was long-term or had substantial adverse effects. Medical evidence showed recurring episodes of severe anxiety symptoms including diarrhea, vomiting, inability to leave home, poor sleep, concentration difficulties, and social withdrawal, with particularly severe symptoms in 2017, 2021-2022, and 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at the material time by reason of anxiety disorder. The judge found the claimant credible and accepted there was ample evidence of a 15-year history of anxiety with sporadic but recurring substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities. The tribunal held that sporadic and long-term are not mutually exclusive, and that the pattern of episodes followed by periods of 'powering through' indicated the condition was likely to recur, meeting the statutory definition of disability.

Practical note

Anxiety disorders can meet the long-term requirement for disability even if symptoms are sporadic and managed through coping mechanisms, provided there is evidence of a recurring pattern over time and likelihood of recurrence.

Legal authorities cited

Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Royal Borough of Greenwich v Syed EAT 0244/14

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 Para 2(2)Equality Act 2010 s.212(1)Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
6004804/2025
Decision date
23 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Maritime Operations Officer

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister