Cases3311921/2023

Claimant v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited

13 October 2025Before Employment Judge Shastri-HurstReadingin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The unfair dismissal claim will be determined at the full merits hearing listed for January-February 2026.

Wrongful Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The wrongful dismissal claim will be determined at the full merits hearing listed for January-February 2026.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by depression and ADHD during the relevant period. The discrimination claims will be determined at the full merits hearing.

Indirect Discrimination(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled. The indirect discrimination claim will be determined at the full merits hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by depression and ADHD. The reasonable adjustments claim will be determined at the full merits hearing.

Harassment(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled. The harassment claim will be determined at the full merits hearing.

Victimisationnot determined

This preliminary hearing dealt solely with disability status. The victimisation claim will be determined at the full merits hearing listed for January-February 2026.

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent for 25 years, moving from Sales to HR in 2021. She struggled with concentration, focus, and information retention throughout her career but was supported in the Sales team. Her difficulties became more apparent in the HR role due to unfamiliar systems, complex tasks, and less colleague support. Following a poor performance review in November 2022, she went on sick leave. She was diagnosed with depression in January 2023 and ADHD in June 2023. She was summarily dismissed following a disciplinary process in June 2023.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by both depression and adult ADHD during the relevant period of 29 November 2022 to 16 July 2023. The claimant's ADHD caused substantial adverse effects on her ability to focus, retain information, and manage time, which had been present since childhood. Her depression caused substantial adverse effects including difficulty caring for her children, sleeping problems, and social withdrawal, which were likely to last at least 12 months.

Practical note

A diagnosis of ADHD by a clinician is not just evidence of impairment but also evidence of substantial adverse effect, and coping strategies are only relevant if they are reasonable to expect the claimant to employ.

Legal authorities cited

Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd [2013] ICR 591Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746All Answers Ltd v Mr W [2021] IRLR 612Paterson v Commissioner of Police and the Metropolis [2007] ICR 1522Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.212Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.27Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.2Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.5

Case details

Case number
3311921/2023
Decision date
13 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Manager, People & Culture Business Partner
Service
25 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister