Cases1301504/2023

Claimant v CitySprint (UK) Ltd

1 August 2025Before Employment Judge HindmarchMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claimant did not meet the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability at the relevant time. In relation to mental health, the claimant did not seek medical assistance during his engagement and declared himself fit and well to insurers. For dyslexia, there was no medical evidence after 2009/2010 and no expert evidence showing a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. For neck/back pain, the claimant did not see his GP until after the engagement ended, the GP notes recorded only one month of symptoms, and the claimant recovered by May 2023 — failing to establish a long-term condition with substantial adverse effects.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

This preliminary hearing was limited to determining disability status only. The race discrimination claim was not addressed at this stage.

Facts

The claimant worked as a delivery driver for the respondent from October 2021 to October 2022. He brought claims of disability and race discrimination, alleging three disabilities: mental health condition, dyslexia, and neck/back pain. The respondent disputed disability status. The claimant had visited his GP for stress-related issues in September 2021 before starting work, did not seek medical help during his engagement, and only consulted his GP again in April 2023 after receiving the respondent's data subject access request response. He had been diagnosed with dyslexia in 2009/10 but provided no recent medical evidence. He reported neck/back pain to his GP the day after his engagement ended, stating it had lasted one month.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant did not meet the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability at the relevant time. There was no mental health condition during the engagement period. While dyslexia was a mental impairment, there was no evidence it caused substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities during the relevant period. The neck/back issues did not amount to a long-term condition with substantial adverse effects, as medical evidence indicated symptoms lasted only one month and the claimant had recovered by May 2023.

Practical note

A claimant alleging disability discrimination must provide contemporaneous medical evidence showing that alleged impairments caused substantial and long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities during the specific period of employment — historical diagnoses and post-employment medical consultations are insufficient.

Legal authorities cited

Dunham v Ashford Windows 2005 ICR 1584Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699McNicol v Balfour Beatty [2002] IRLR 711Law Hospital Trust v Rush [2001] IRLR 611Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast [2002] IRLR 24Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant UKEAT/01617/19

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
1301504/2023
Decision date
1 August 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
delivery driver
Service
11 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No