Claimant v ABM Facility Services UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing addressed only the issue of whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person at the material time (20 April 2022 to 4 May 2023) for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that her Tennis Elbow impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the claimant lacked title to present it.
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time. The claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the claimant lacked the protected characteristic of disability necessary to bring such a claim.
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time. The section 19 indirect discrimination claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the claimant failed to establish possession of the protected characteristic of disability.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a cleaning operative from September 2019, promoted to Supervisor in April 2020. She worked on a site managed by the second respondent. In August-September 2022, she was absent from work for three weeks with Tennis Elbow, returning on light duties for 2-3 weeks before resuming her full 8-10 hour daily cleaning shifts. She was dismissed on 4 May 2023 following a third party removal request from the second respondent. The claimant contended she was disabled at the material time (20 April 2022 to 4 May 2023) due to Tennis Elbow with secondary shoulder impact. The respondents denied knowledge of any disability and disputed she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish she was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. While she suffered Tennis Elbow for approximately 3 weeks in August-September 2022, the evidence showed she substantially recovered after light duties and returned to full strenuous cleaning work for 8-10 hours daily. The tribunal found her account of substantial adverse effects inconsistent with the contemporaneous medical records and her ability to perform demanding physical work throughout the relevant period. The impairment was neither long-term nor had substantial adverse effect. All disability discrimination claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Practical note
A claimant's account of disability and substantial adverse effects must be consistent with contemporaneous medical evidence and their actual working pattern; self-limiting conditions like Tennis Elbow are unlikely to meet the long-term requirement where recovery occurs within months and full duties resume.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105402/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Cleaning Operative / Supervisor
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union