Cases2502272/2023

Claimant v The Wise Group Limited

17 February 2025Before Regional Employment Judge FraneyManchesterremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalwithdrawn

Claimant had less than two years' continuous service and did not have qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Complaint was withdrawn and dismissed.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Preliminary hearing on disability status only. Tribunal found claimant was disabled due to combination of impairments (obesity-related mobility issues, Sleep Apnoea, water retention, back/joint pain, Asthma) substantially limiting walking ability. Main discrimination claims remain to be determined at full merits hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Preliminary hearing on disability status only. Tribunal found claimant was disabled. Substantive claim regarding failure to adjust for walking requirements in prison settings remains to be determined at full merits hearing.

Facts

Claimant worked as Finance Benefit and Debt Mentor from August 2022 to June 2023. She was dismissed on capability grounds. She had multiple obesity-related conditions including Sleep Apnoea, water retention, lower back/joint pain and Asthma, all requiring daily medication. An October 2022 occupational health report stated she could walk only 5-10 minutes before needing a break due to pain and breathlessness. The role required walking in prisons which the claimant found difficult. She brought disability discrimination claims but lacked qualifying service for unfair dismissal.

Decision

Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine disability status. Judge found claimant was disabled under Equality Act 2010 during employment. The combination of impairments (primarily obesity-related mobility restrictions) had a substantial long-term adverse effect on her ability to walk - a normal day-to-day activity. Without daily medication for pain, fluid retention, Sleep Apnoea and Asthma, she could walk only 5-10 minutes before needing a break. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn due to lack of qualifying service. Substantive discrimination claims proceed to full hearing.

Practical note

Multiple obesity-related impairments which cumulatively restrict walking to 5-10 minutes before breaks are needed can meet the disability threshold, applying the 'deduced effect' principle regarding daily medication even without expert medical evidence on what would happen if medication stopped.

Legal authorities cited

Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 1716Walker v SITA Information Networking Computing Ltd UKEAT-0097-12J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 5Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2

Case details

Case number
2502272/2023
Decision date
17 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Finance Benefit and Debt Mentor
Service
10 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No