Cases2200767/2024

Claimant v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

19 May 2025Before Employment Judge ShuklaLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

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

The tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment on 4 March 2024, namely GORD causing chest pain and numbness in his left arm. The tribunal accepted that these impairments had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, including lifting moderate weights, walking, and going up and down steps. The impairments had lasted for more than 12 months (chest pain from August 2022) and were likely to continue for at least 12 months at the relevant date, satisfying the long-term requirement.

Facts

The claimant worked as a hospital porter for the respondent NHS Trust and had been off work for most of the period from August 2022 to February 2025 due to chest pain, GORD, and numbness in his left arm. He underwent various medical investigations including a cardiac scan (which was normal) and an endoscopy (which was also normal). The claimant was on medication for GORD and had been issued numerous fit notes advising light duties with no heavy lifting, pushing, or pulling. The respondent contested that the claimant had any impairment at all, arguing that he had an unreasonable fear of cardiac disease stemming from a relative's death.

Decision

The tribunal found that on 4 March 2024, the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of GORD causing chest pain and numbness in his left arm. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that these conditions had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to lift moderate weights, walk, and go up and down steps. The conditions had been ongoing since August 2022 and were likely to continue for at least 12 months from the relevant date, satisfying the long-term requirement.

Practical note

A preliminary hearing on disability status can succeed even where the respondent challenges the credibility of the claimant and suggests psychosomatic causes, if there is consistent medical evidence of ongoing symptoms and functional limitations supported by fit notes and occupational health reports.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.212Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 para 1

Case details

Case number
2200767/2024
Decision date
19 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Hospital Porter

Claimant representation

Represented
No