Claimant v Panton McLeod Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Preliminary hearing found claimant was disabled by reason of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) only, not ADHD. Direct discrimination claim proceeds to final hearing on the basis of ASD as the protected characteristic.
Preliminary hearing found claimant was disabled by reason of ASD only, not ADHD. Harassment claim proceeds to final hearing on the basis of ASD as the protected characteristic.
Tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim in so far as it was founded upon ADHD, because claimant failed to discharge burden of proof that he was diagnosed with ADHD or that it had substantial and long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities at the material time.
Tribunal dismissed the harassment claim in so far as it was founded upon ADHD, because claimant failed to discharge burden of proof that he was diagnosed with ADHD or that it had substantial and long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities at the material time.
Facts
The claimant brought disability discrimination and harassment claims against Panton McLeod Ltd arising from events in January 2024. He asserted he was disabled by reason of two conditions: Autism Spectrum Disorder (diagnosed 2017) and ADHD (claimed diagnosis 2019). The respondent contested disability status. At a preliminary hearing on 15 November 2024, the tribunal heard evidence on whether the claimant met the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant appeared in person and gave evidence. He failed to rejoin the hearing after lunch, and the tribunal proceeded in his absence to hear the respondent's submissions and make its determination.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of Autism Spectrum Disorder only. It accepted he was diagnosed in 2017 and that ASD is a lifelong condition. Evidence showed that at the material time (January 2024), ASD substantially affected his ability to wash, dress, eat breakfast, travel, and shop without assistance. However, the tribunal dismissed claims based on ADHD because the claimant failed to prove he had been properly diagnosed with ADHD or that it had substantial and long-term effects at the relevant time. Claims proceed to final hearing on the basis of ASD as the protected characteristic.
Practical note
Claimants must provide robust evidence not only of diagnosis but also of substantial and long-term adverse impact on day-to-day activities at the material time; diagnosis alone or historic reports are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence of impact.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000503/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No