Claimant v Do & Co Event & Airline Catering Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status and respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at the material time and refused to strike out the direct disability discrimination complaint, finding it had reasonable prospects of success. The substantive claim will be heard at a later hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status and respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at the material time and refused to strike out the discrimination arising from disability complaint, finding it had reasonable prospects of success. The substantive claim will be heard at a later hearing.
Facts
Miss Pakalnyte worked for an airline catering company. From September 2020 she experienced stress at work in what she described as a toxic environment. On 20 October 2020 there was a severe incident and she went on sick leave for stress and anxiety. She was assessed by her GP and referred to IAPT counselling for anxiety and depression. She was dismissed on 6 December 2020, allegedly for redundancy, though there is a dispute about whether the dismissal letter was backdated. She claims she was dismissed because of her disability or disability-related sickness absence.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by anxiety and depression at the material time (6 December 2020). The conditions had substantial adverse effects on a wide range of day-to-day activities, and could well have lasted for at least 12 months. The respondent's application to strike out the disability discrimination claims was refused, as there were disputed core facts about the date and reason for dismissal that required a full hearing with oral evidence.
Practical note
Tribunals should be cautious about striking out disability discrimination claims even where medical evidence is limited, particularly where there are disputed facts about the reason for dismissal that turn on the decision-maker's mental processes and can only be properly determined at a full hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315398/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep