Cases6000458/2024

Claimant v City College, Plymouth

14 October 2025Before Employment Judge HastieExeterremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing was limited to determining disability status. The unfair dismissal claim has not yet been determined on its merits.

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

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of cancer only. The discrimination claim based on alleged decision to discipline and dismiss has not yet been determined on its merits.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of cancer. The reasonable adjustments claim relating to May-September 2023 and alleged substantial disadvantage in being unable to effectively advocate for himself has not yet been determined on its merits.

Facts

Mr Hindley-Matic was employed as a lecturer from September 2019 to September 2023. He was diagnosed with cancer in December 2019, underwent surgery in 2020 which removed all cancerous cells, and had annual clear scans thereafter. He was dismissed following allegations of gross misconduct relating to conduct between September 2021 and October 2022, with investigation and dismissal occurring May-September 2023. He claimed he was disabled by cancer and several consequential impairments including physical/chronic fatigue, cognitive fatigue/chemo brain, emotional regulatory difficulties, phantom rectum/bowel dysfunction, and peripheral neuropathy. Throughout the material period he continued working, took minimal sick leave, and provided additional support to students beyond his contracted duties.

Decision

The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of cancer only (deemed disability under Schedule 1 paragraph 6 Equality Act 2010). The tribunal rejected his claims that physical/chronic fatigue, cognitive fatigue/chemo brain, and emotional regulatory difficulties constituted separate disabilities, finding insufficient medical evidence and inconsistency with his actual performance at work. The matter was listed for further case management.

Practical note

Cancer is a deemed disability but alleged consequential impairments require robust medical evidence and must demonstrate substantial long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities; self-reported symptoms inconsistent with continued good work performance will not suffice.

Legal authorities cited

Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 6Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2

Case details

Case number
6000458/2024
Decision date
14 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Lecturer
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No