Cases2302697/2022

Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited

20 January 2025Before Employment Judge MaceyLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

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

This was a preliminary hearing solely on the issue of whether the claimant's plantar fasciitis was a disability under the Equality Act 2010 between late 2020 and 16 January 2022. The tribunal determined that it was a disability. The substantive discrimination claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.

Facts

The claimant worked for Tesco from November 2018, initially in the F&F clothing department requiring prolonged standing. She developed plantar fasciitis causing severe foot pain and swelling. On medical advice she moved to checkouts but avoided the self-service area which required standing. She could only stand for one hour before needing a 5-10 minute break. She took daily painkillers and received shockwave therapy. She also experienced sleep disturbance waking 3-4 times per night and had to wait 5-6 minutes on waking before standing.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant's plantar fasciitis was a disability under the Equality Act 2010 between late 2020 and 16 January 2022. The inability to stand for more than one hour had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to work in any job requiring prolonged standing. The avoidance strategy of changing departments and avoiding certain tasks did not negate this substantial effect. The other effects (walking limitation, sleep disturbance, morning stiffness) were not individually substantial but the standing limitation was.

Practical note

An avoidance strategy adopted by an employee with plantar fasciitis (changing to a seated role to avoid standing) does not prevent a finding of substantial adverse effect on the ability to stand for prolonged periods, which is a normal day-to-day activity.

Legal authorities cited

Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd UKEAT/0316/12/KNHendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Elliot v Dorset County Council UKEAT/0197/20/LAGoodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.212Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 Sch 1 Para 5

Case details

Case number
2302697/2022
Decision date
20 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
F&F clothing department / checkout operator
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep