Claimant v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Preliminary hearing addressed only employment status and disability status. Unfair dismissal requires employee status. Tribunal found claimant was a worker, not an employee under s.230 ERA 1996, so claim cannot proceed.
Preliminary hearing determined claimant has disability as defined by s.6 Equality Act 2010 due to Crohn's Disease and Autism. Substantive discrimination claims not yet determined.
Claim relating to sick pay and unpaid holiday. Preliminary hearing addressed only status and disability. Substantive claim on deductions not yet determined.
Claim under Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998. Preliminary hearing addressed only status and disability. Substantive claim not yet determined.
Claim for failure to pay notice pay. Preliminary hearing addressed only status and disability. Substantive claim not yet determined.
Claim for failure to pay redundancy pay. Preliminary hearing addressed only status and disability. Substantive claim not yet determined. Redundancy pay typically requires employee status.
Case arose from dispute over flexible working and home working request related to claimant's disabilities. Preliminary hearing determined disability status. Substantive reasonable adjustments claim not yet determined.
Facts
Claimant worked as Consultant Histopathologist for NHS Trust from April 2017 on locum bank contract. He has Crohn's Disease (diagnosed 1991, surgical treatment) and Autism (diagnosed 2021). Dispute arose when respondent required return to on-site working but claimant requested to continue working from home. Claimant's flexible working request and appeal were refused. Claimant manages Crohn's symptoms by restricting solid food intake during working hours and carefully planning eating times. He was paid higher hourly rates than salaried consultants, had no guaranteed hours, could choose shifts, and had no job plan or sickness/holiday entitlements equivalent to employees.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant has disability under Equality Act 2010 due to both Crohn's Disease and Autism. Crohn's Disease substantially affects his ability to eat food, a normal day-to-day activity, despite successful symptom management. Tribunal found claimant was a worker under s.230(3) ERA but not an employee, due to lack of mutuality of obligation, limited control by employer, and contractual arrangements inconsistent with employment (hourly rate, no guaranteed hours, different terms from salaried consultants).
Practical note
Restriction of food intake to manage chronic condition symptoms can constitute substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activity of eating, even where individual has adapted well; locum consultants on bank contracts with freedom to choose shifts and higher hourly rates are workers not employees despite significant integration.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301421/2024
- Decision date
- 14 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Consultant Histopathologist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No