Claimant v Wessex Retail Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The tribunal concluded that his contended impairments (lower back pain, hearing issues, neurodiverse conditions, and depression) did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Without disability status, the discrimination claims could not proceed.
This claim failed because the claimant did not satisfy the threshold requirement of being a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
This claim failed because the claimant did not satisfy the threshold requirement of being a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
This claim failed because the claimant did not satisfy the threshold requirement of being a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
Facts
Mr Stutt was employed as a store assistant by Wessex Retail Ltd from February 2023 until his dismissal on 3 June 2024 following sickness absence. He brought disability discrimination claims relying on multiple impairments: lower back pain, hearing loss in his left ear, undiagnosed neurodiverse conditions (ADHD, OCD, Aspergers/autism, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome), and depression. He contended that his personality and neurodiverse traits led to friction with management and colleagues, culminating in discriminatory treatment and dismissal. The respondent denied he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Decision
The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that none of his contended impairments (individually or cumulatively) had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. The tribunal noted a lack of medical evidence supporting formal diagnoses, and concluded that the claimant's personality traits and work-related stress did not meet the statutory threshold. Consequently, all disability discrimination claims were dismissed and the final hearing vacated.
Practical note
A claimant must establish disability status with clear medical evidence showing substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities; personality traits, work frustrations, and undiagnosed conditions do not satisfy the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001516/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- store assistant
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No