Cases1602420/2024

Claimant v Pullman Rail Limited

8 January 2025Before Employment Judge W BradyWalesremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

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

This was a preliminary hearing to determine disability status only. The substantive claim of discrimination arising from disability has not yet been heard. The tribunal found the claimant did have a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010 at the material time.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing to determine disability status only. The substantive claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments has not yet been heard. The tribunal found the claimant did have a disability, allowing this claim to proceed.

Facts

The claimant worked as a Semi-Skilled Fitter for 5 months before dismissal on 4 March 2024. In November 2023 he injured his ankle in a fall outside his house, developing impingement syndrome. He received treatment from his GP, was referred to orthopaedics and podiatry, and received insoles and an injection. An occupational health report in February 2024 stated prognosis was unpredictable and further treatment was expected. The claimant hoped to recover but the podiatrist scheduled a 6-month follow-up.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant did have a disability at the material time (November 2023 to March 2024). Although the claimant was hopeful of recovery, the tribunal objectively assessed the contemporaneous medical evidence. The podiatrist's 6-month follow-up and the OH report's indication that further treatment would likely be needed meant there was a real possibility the condition could well last 12 months, satisfying the long-term requirement.

Practical note

When determining disability status, tribunals must objectively assess whether an impairment is likely to last 12 months based on contemporaneous evidence at the material time, not the claimant's subjective hope of recovery or subsequent events.

Legal authorities cited

Richmond Adult Community College v McDougallGoodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] ICR 1056Singapore Airlines Ltd v EAT

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
1602420/2024
Decision date
8 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Semi-Skilled Fitter
Service
5 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No