Cases2404632/2023

Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence

31 March 2025Before Employment Judge BradfordBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the dismissal was fair under s98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent established a potentially fair reason for dismissal and followed a fair procedure, falling within the band of reasonable responses.

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

The tribunal found that the Claimant was not disabled in accordance with s6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of Benign Joint Hypermobility at the relevant time. Without establishing disability status, all disability-related claims failed.

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

The claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded because the tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled at the relevant time, which is a prerequisite for this claim.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The claim under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 failed because the tribunal determined the Claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time, so the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise.

Facts

Miss Glass was employed by the Ministry of Defence and was dismissed. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination related to Benign Joint Hypermobility. The case was heard over eight days by video hearing in March 2025 before Employment Judge Bradford, with both parties represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The dismissal was found to be fair under s98 ERA 1996. Critically, the tribunal determined that Miss Glass was not a disabled person under s6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of Benign Joint Hypermobility at the relevant time, which meant her disability discrimination claims under s15 and ss20-21 could not succeed.

Practical note

A claimant must establish they are a disabled person under s6 Equality Act 2010 before any disability discrimination claims can succeed; without disability status, all related claims will fail regardless of the treatment alleged.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98EqA 2010 s.6EqA 2010 s.15EqA 2010 s.20EqA 2010 s.21

Case details

Case number
2404632/2023
Decision date
31 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
8
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
military
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister