Claimant v Framework Housing Association
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The only medical evidence showed work-related stress, which following Herry v Dudley MBC is not a clinical impairment. The claimant failed to provide evidence of the claimed disabilities (PTSD, depressive disorder, personality disorder). The tribunal also found the claimant had deliberately redacted GP records to mislead the tribunal.
Withdrawn by the claimant at the preliminary hearing.
The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination claim on the ground it had no reasonable prospect of success. There was no identifiable causal link between the alleged treatment and the claimant's gender. The claim was also struck out due to unreasonable conduct of proceedings, specifically the manuscript redaction of medical records which the tribunal found was a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of disability, race and sex discrimination against Framework Housing Association and two individual respondents. She claimed to be disabled by PTSD, depressive disorder and personality disorder. The respondent applied to strike out claims. The only medical evidence was GP records showing work-related stress, and a heavily redacted single page from an unidentified 2007/2008 report. The tribunal found the claimant had deliberately redacted GP records to change their meaning and mislead the tribunal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim finding the claimant was not disabled under s.6 EqA 2010 as work-related stress is not a clinical impairment and no evidence of other conditions was provided. The race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The sex discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success (no causal link to gender established) and due to unreasonable conduct in deliberately redacting medical records.
Practical note
A claimant attempting to mislead the tribunal by fabricating or manipulating medical evidence risks not only losing on the merits but having claims struck out for unreasonable conduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2601064/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep