Cases3302477/2023

Claimant v London Luton Airport Operations Ltd

8 January 2025Before Employment Judge TynanCambridgein person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This claim was not determined at the preliminary hearing which was solely concerned with whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Direct Discrimination(race)withdrawn

The claim of race discrimination was withdrawn by the claimant and has already been dismissed.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of carpal tunnel syndrome or stress, anxiety and depression. The claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. For CTS, although there were some substantial adverse effects by December 2019/January 2020, the effects were not likely to last 12 months and were not recurring. For stress, anxiety and depression, the tribunal found this was a reaction to adverse workplace circumstances rather than a mental impairment with substantial long-term effects on normal day-to-day activities.

Facts

The claimant worked for London Luton Airport and claimed disability discrimination based on carpal tunnel syndrome (December 2019 to February 2020) and stress, anxiety and depression (October to November 2022). He had recurrent CTS symptoms with steroid injections and experienced work-related stress which he attributed to bullying and harassment. He took 18 months sabbatical leave in 2020-2022, then returned briefly before going on long-term sick leave and eventually resigning. His GP records showed intermittent symptoms for CTS and consistent references to work-related stress rather than underlying mental health condition.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. For CTS, although there were some substantial adverse effects by late 2019/early 2020, the claimant failed to prove these were likely to last 12 months as required by statute. For stress, anxiety and depression, the tribunal found this was a reaction to adverse workplace circumstances which abated when away from work, rather than a mental impairment with substantial long-term effects on day-to-day activities. All disability discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Practical note

A claimant must prove not only substantial adverse effects at the relevant time, but also that those effects were likely to last 12 months based on evidence available at that time, not with hindsight; work-related stress that abates when away from the workplace is likely to be a reaction to circumstances rather than a disabling mental impairment.

Legal authorities cited

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Morris UKEAT_0436_10Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610Dunham v Ashford Windows [2005] IRLR 608Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] ECHC3560 (Comm)Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] ICR 1056McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431All Answers Ltd v Mr W and Ms R [2021] EWCA Civ 606Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190J v DLA Piper UK LLP UKEAT0263/09/RN

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2Equality Act 2010 s.212Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
3302477/2023
Decision date
8 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep