Claimant v Offshore Helicopter Services UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dealt only with the preliminary issue of deemed disability status. The unfair dismissal claim was not determined and will proceed to final hearing. The respondent contends the claimant was dismissed for conduct reasons.
The tribunal found the claimant did not demonstrate she had a deemed disability under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. The pathology report showed 'no evidence of dysplasia or malignancy' and her surgeon wrote that there was 'no feature suggestive of cancer'. Even if the lesion was keratoacanthoma, there were no detectable cancer cells, which following Lofty would exclude protection under the deeming provisions.
The tribunal found the claimant did not establish deemed disability status under the Equality Act 2010, which was a precondition for this claim. The claim cannot succeed without establishing disability status.
The tribunal found the claimant did not establish deemed disability status under the Equality Act 2010, which was a precondition for this claim. The claim cannot succeed without establishing disability status.
Facts
The claimant worked as a security team supervisor from May 2013 until dismissal in October 2024. In September 2023, she developed a skin lesion which her GP referred urgently as suspected skin cancer (possibly SCC or keratoacanthoma). The lesion was excised in November 2023. Pathology results in December 2023 showed no evidence of dysplasia or malignancy, and her surgeon wrote in January 2024 confirming no features suggestive of cancer. The claimant understood keratoacanthoma to be a type of cancer and claimed deemed disability status, which her employer initially accepted but later disputed after seeing the medical records showing no cancer diagnosis.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant did not demonstrate deemed disability under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. There was no definitive diagnosis of keratoacanthoma, and even if there had been, the pathology showed no detectable cancer cells or malignancy. Following the reasoning in Lofty, the absence of cancerous cells excluded protection under the deeming provisions. The disability discrimination claims therefore failed. The unfair dismissal claim will proceed to a final hearing.
Practical note
Deemed disability protection under Schedule 1 paragraph 6 Equality Act 2010 requires an actual diagnosis of cancer with detectable cancerous cells, not merely being on a cancer pathway or having a lesion with potential for malignancy that is subsequently found to be non-cancerous.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8002009/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- security team supervisor
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No