Claimant v Planning Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. While the claimant had impairments of dyslexia, ADHD symptoms, and anxiety, the tribunal found these did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The claimant was able to work in a physically demanding role, achieved educational qualifications, and overstated the extent of his difficulties.
The tribunal dismissed this claim as the claimant was found not to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
The tribunal dismissed this claim as the claimant was found not to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
The tribunal dismissed this claim as the claimant was found not to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Ropes Team Leader for the respondent at a visitor attraction from March 2021 to June 2023. He claimed disability discrimination based on dyslexia, probable ADHD, and chronic anxiety. The claimant had a history of mental health problems and anxiety, particularly during stressful periods. In early 2023, following workplace disputes including an alleged assault, the claimant experienced heightened anxiety and panic attacks and was prescribed medication. The claimant provided extensive medical records and a detailed impact statement describing various difficulties.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all disability discrimination claims after finding the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. While accepting the claimant had impairments of dyslexia, ADHD symptoms, and anxiety, the tribunal found these did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal found the claimant had significantly exaggerated his symptoms and was able to perform physically demanding work and achieve educational qualifications.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has diagnosed or accepted impairments, the tribunal will rigorously scrutinise evidence of substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, and inconsistencies or exaggeration in a claimant's evidence can be fatal to establishing disability status.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2601318/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Ropes Team Leader
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep