Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving he was a disabled person under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010. For Type 2 Diabetes, there was insufficient reliable evidence of deduced effects absent the meal plan treatment, and no clear medical evidence was provided. For Glaucoma, while the claimant took medication, there was no evidence of adverse effects at the relevant time, the condition was stable, and any deterioration would be progressive rather than immediate. The claimant failed to establish substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities for either impairment.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Security Guard at the respondent's Shetland Islands facility from April to December 2022, when he was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. He brought a disability discrimination claim based on Type 2 Diabetes and Glaucoma. At a preliminary hearing on disability status, evidence emerged that the claimant was not actually prescribed diabetes medication during his employment but was using his wife's medication as 'back-up' and following a meal plan. His Glaucoma was stable and controlled with daily eye drops, with no evidence of adverse effects during the relevant period.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim for want of jurisdiction, finding the claimant failed to prove he was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found his evidence about diabetes unreliable and concluded there was insufficient clear medical evidence of the deduced effects (what would happen without treatment) for either condition. For Glaucoma, the condition was stable with no adverse effects demonstrated at the relevant time.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must provide clear medical evidence of deduced effects to establish disability status, particularly where impairments are controlled by treatment; a claimant's assertion alone about what might happen without treatment is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000038/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Y
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security Guard
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No