Claimant v Yorkshire Repak Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not considered at this stage.
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the wrongful dismissal claim were not considered at this stage.
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the victimisation claim were not considered at this stage.
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the breach of contract claim (concerning contractual right to work at Knottingley site protected by TUPE) were not considered at this stage.
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the race discrimination claim (the Claimants are Polish) were not considered at this stage.
This preliminary hearing was limited to determining whether the Second and Third Claimants were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the age discrimination claim relating to dismissal were not considered at this stage.
The tribunal found that the Second Claimant (Ms Bem) was disabled by reason of arthritis in her knee from 25 May 2024 onwards, and the Third Claimant (Mrs Szmidt) was disabled by reason of arthritis, and by reason of diabetes type 2 from 2021 onwards. However, neither was disabled by reason of depression as at the material date (11 June 2024). The merits of the reasonable adjustments claim itself were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Three Polish claimants employed at a bottle factory were suspended on 3 May 2024 and dismissed on 27 June 2024 for alleged gross misconduct. The claimants brought claims including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, race discrimination, age discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether the Second Claimant (Ms Bem) and Third Claimant (Mrs Szmidt) were disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The material date for assessment was 11 June 2024, being the date of the alleged PCP (requirement to move to Barnsley and/or work on production).
Decision
The tribunal found that Ms Bem was disabled by reason of osteoarthritis in her knee from 25 May 2024 onwards, but not by reason of high blood pressure, upper body arthritis, or depression as at 11 June 2024. Mrs Szmidt was found to be disabled by reason of arthritis (conceded by the respondent) and by reason of diabetes type 2 from 2021 onwards due to vision problems and cumulative effects including fatigue. She was not found to be disabled by reason of depression as at the material date, as this was a reaction to her suspension rather than a long-term mental impairment.
Practical note
Where disability status depends on medical evidence and diagnosis, tribunals will carefully scrutinize the timing and nature of symptoms, require reliable evidence of deduced effects from medication, distinguish between clinical conditions and reactions to adverse events, and assess disability strictly as at the material date without regard to post-date developments.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1810462/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- resort department (bottle factory)
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No