Claimant v Transport for Greater Manchester
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did have the impairment of anxiety and depression which was long-term, but that the effect was not 'substantial' within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant was able to carry out normal day-to-day activities including applying for jobs, attending telephone interviews, communicating with agents, using a computer, following instructions, and managing his personal life. The impact on his ability to perform telephone-based work was not persistent or sufficiently severe to meet the statutory threshold. The tribunal had concerns about credibility, noting the claimant applied for a telephone-based role then sought to change it to email-only. His GP assessed him as 'euthymic' (normal, stable mood) in October 2023.
Claim dismissed following the finding that the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
Disability-related harassment claim dismissed following the finding that the claimant was not disabled. The claim does not proceed to final hearing.
Religion-related harassment claim to proceed to final hearing. No determination made at this preliminary hearing which was solely concerned with disability status.
Indirect religious discrimination claim to proceed to final hearing. No determination made at this preliminary hearing.
Sex-related harassment claim to proceed to final hearing. No determination made at this preliminary hearing.
Age-related harassment claim to proceed to final hearing. No determination made at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent as a Customer Support Officer from August to November 2023 in a telephone-based customer service role. He had a history of anxiety and depression since 2015, with fluctuating symptoms. He found telephone work stressful, particularly dealing with difficult calls and angry customers, and requested reasonable adjustments including moving to email-only work, working three consecutive days, and not working Sundays. The respondent referred him to occupational health who found him temporarily unfit but recommended consideration of a non-telephone role if operationally feasible. The claimant's employment was terminated on 16 November 2023 after he failed his probationary period due to performance, capability and attendance concerns.
Decision
The tribunal found that while the claimant had the long-term impairment of anxiety and depression, it did not have a 'substantial' adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period of August to November 2023. The claimant was able to apply for jobs, attend telephone interviews, use computers, follow instructions, and manage his personal life. The tribunal had credibility concerns, noting he applied for a telephone role then sought to fundamentally change it. His disability discrimination claims were dismissed; his religion, age and sex discrimination claims proceed to final hearing.
Practical note
A long-term mental health condition does not automatically meet the 'substantial adverse effect' threshold for disability status under the Equality Act 2010, even where there is clear difficulty with aspects of work; tribunals will scrutinise whether day-to-day activities are genuinely impaired and may have credibility concerns where a claimant applies for a role then seeks to fundamentally alter its core duties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2412088/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Support Officer
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No