Cases3201301/2024

Claimant v Barts Health NHS Trust

2 May 2025Before Employment Judge S ShoreLondon Eastin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)dismissed on withdrawal

The tribunal found the claimant did not meet the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. Medical evidence was inadequate and vague regarding diagnosis, dates, and medication. The claimant failed to demonstrate he had depression and anxiety during his employment or that it substantially affected his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

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

Claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 dismissed because the claimant did not meet the definition of disability at the relevant time, as determined by the tribunal's findings on the preliminary issue.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

Claim under sections 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010 dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not meet the definition of disability at the relevant time, which is a prerequisite for this claim.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Struck out because the claimant did not respond to a strike out warning regarding his claim for failure to pay notice pay.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Pharmacy Trainee for four months from November 2023 to March 2024 and was dismissed. He did not attend work from 8 December 2023 onwards. He brought claims for disability discrimination based on depression and anxiety, alleging mood management issues and forgetfulness. The respondent contested disability status. At a preliminary hearing to determine disability, the claimant provided inadequate medical evidence consisting of letters from 2022 and 2024 with vague diagnoses and no clear information about his condition during employment.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all disability discrimination claims, finding the claimant failed to prove he met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The medical evidence was vague regarding diagnosis, dates, and medication during his employment. The breach of contract claim was struck out for non-response to a warning. All claims failed.

Practical note

Claimants must provide clear, contemporaneous medical evidence with specific dates and impacts on day-to-day activities to establish disability status; vague GP letters stating conditions exist 'since 2014' or using medication at unspecified times are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.

Legal authorities cited

Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Peart v Dixons Store Group Retail Limited (2004) UKEAT/0630/04SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] ICR 1056Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729All Answers Ltd v W [2021] EWCA Civ 606

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.212(1)

Case details

Case number
3201301/2024
Decision date
2 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Pharmacy Trainee
Service
4 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No