Cases2217983/2024

Claimant v Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited

13 February 2025Before Employment Judge L BrownLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found as a preliminary matter that the claimant was not a disabled person at any relevant time between 11 May 2022 and 22 February 2024. Without disability status, the claim for direct disability discrimination in relation to dismissal cannot succeed.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found as a preliminary matter that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time. The claim relating to refusal of a fit note request on 12 January 2024 therefore cannot succeed as the claimant did not have the protected characteristic of disability.

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

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act at the relevant time. Without disability status, section 15 claims for discrimination arising from disability in respect of dismissal cannot proceed.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claims regarding transfer to a shop closer to home and provision of a chair with elevated arm rests cannot succeed without the claimant establishing disability status.

Facts

The claimant was employed by Ladbrokes from May 2021 until dismissed in February 2024. He suffered a fall at work in May 2022 and was initially suspected of having a stroke, but medical investigations found no evidence of stroke. He was signed off work from July 2023 to February 2024 with neurological symptoms. Multiple medical professionals, including a consultant neurologist, found no objective evidence supporting his reported symptoms and noted 'functional overlay'. He was diagnosed with depression in October 2024, after his dismissal. The claimant brought disability discrimination claims based on alleged impairments of stroke, depression, anxiety and low mood.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person at any relevant time between May 2022 and February 2024. There was no medical evidence of stroke, and his reported neurological symptoms were contradicted by clinical findings and inconsistent engagement with treatment. Depression was only diagnosed after the dismissal, and contemporaneous medical records during the relevant period showed his mood was stable. Without disability status, all disability discrimination claims failed as a preliminary matter.

Practical note

Claimants must provide consistent and reliable medical evidence to establish disability status; contradictory contemporaneous records and findings of 'functional overlay' without supporting psychiatric evidence will defeat disability claims.

Legal authorities cited

Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Cruickshanks v VAW Motorcrest Limited [2002] ICR 729Walker v SITA Information Networking Computing Ltd [2013] CLY 964Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] IRLR 706Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2022] IRLR 194Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall [2008] ICR 431J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.212(1)Equality Act 2010 Sch 1 para 12Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
2217983/2024
Decision date
13 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
betting shop employee
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No