Cases2301931/2023

Claimant v Elmes Homecare UK Limited

31 January 2025Before Employment Judge Fredericks-BowyerLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

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

The tribunal found that the claimant did not satisfy the definition of disability under s6 Equality Act 2010. Although she had substantial adverse effects from a combination of a rash and depression symptoms from November 2022, the tribunal was not satisfied these effects were likely to last 12 months when assessed at the relevant time. The conditions were found to be acute rather than long-term.

Constructive Dismissalnot determined

The constructive dismissal claim was expressly stated to be unaffected by this preliminary hearing judgment on disability status and remains to be determined at a future hearing.

Facts

The claimant lost her niece in autumn 2022 and developed a disfiguring rash and symptoms of depression from November 2022. She continued working until early February 2023 when she was signed off with bereavement and depression. She claimed disability discrimination relating to events between August 2022 and her resignation around 27 February 2023. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on disability status and failed to provide GP notes or evidence of prescribed medication despite being directed to do so.

Decision

The tribunal found that although the claimant experienced substantial adverse effects from her conditions, she failed to establish the long-term element of the disability definition. The conditions arose in November 2022 and there was insufficient evidence to show it was likely they would last 12 months from the relevant time. The tribunal drew adverse inferences from missing medical evidence. The disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.

Practical note

Claimants must provide robust medical evidence to establish the long-term prognosis of conditions at the material time, particularly for reactive/acute mental health conditions, and tribunals will draw adverse inferences from unexplained failures to disclose available GP notes or prescription records.

Legal authorities cited

Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190Tesco Stores Limited v Tennant [2020] IRLR 363Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce [2001] IRLR 19Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431SCA Packaging Limited v Boyle [2009] ICR 1056Nissa v Waverly Education Foundation Limited UKEAT/0135/18All Answers Ltd v W [2021] IRLR 612

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.212Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 paragraph 2(1)Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 paragraph 12Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
2301931/2023
Decision date
31 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No