Cases8000503/2024

Claimant v Panton McLeod Ltd

11 March 2025Before Employment Judge J G d'InvernoScotlandremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

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.

Harassment(disability)not determined

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.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

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.

Harassment(disability)struck out

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

Equality Act 2010 s.6

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