Claimant v Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing addressed whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by virtue of his ADHD from 25 January 2022 to 25 April 2023. The substantive claim of direct disability discrimination has not yet been heard and determined.
This preliminary hearing addressed the threshold issue of disability status only. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled due to ADHD during the material time. The substantive claim of indirect discrimination has not yet been heard and determined.
This preliminary hearing determined that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act at the material time by reason of ADHD. The substantive claim relating to failure to make reasonable adjustments has not yet been heard and remains to be determined at a future hearing.
This claim was brought by the claimant in his ET1 dated 29 May 2023. This preliminary hearing addressed only the issue of disability status, which the tribunal found in the claimant's favour. The substantive victimisation claim has not yet been heard or determined.
Facts
The claimant, a Station Commander with a fire authority, transferred to a new employer in March 2021. He had ADHD since childhood but had developed effective coping strategies. After the move, new systems and processes caused his coping mechanisms to break down. He began struggling significantly with administration, reading, writing, and communication. In January 2022 he disclosed his ADHD to his employer. He was subsequently subject to disciplinary proceedings in October 2022, went off sick in December 2022, and returned to work in April 2023. The claimant worked late nights and weekends to compensate for his difficulties.
Decision
The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent conceded that the claimant had ADHD and that it was long-term, but disputed whether the effect was substantial. The tribunal found that during the material time (25 January 2022 to 25 April 2023), the claimant's ADHD had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities including reading, writing, sleeping, concentrating, and communicating. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had to work late nights and weekends to maintain performance standards, and found this impact was more than minor or trivial. The claimant was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act.
Practical note
A high-functioning employee with ADHD may still be disabled if their coping strategies break down and the condition substantially affects day-to-day tasks, even if work performance appears acceptable on the surface.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1304229/2023
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Station Commander
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No