Cases1405880/2023

Claimant v British Telecommunications plc

21 August 2024Before Employment Judge LiveseyBristolin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissaldismissed on withdrawal

Dismissed by Employment Judge Bax on 1 May 2024 because the claimant did not have sufficient service (less than two years) to pursue an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing determined only the issue of disability status. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by depression and anxiety. The merits of the discrimination claims will be heard at a final hearing in January 2025.

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

The tribunal determined only that the claimant was disabled. Whether the dismissal arose from disability and whether it was justified will be determined at the final hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

The preliminary issue of disability was resolved in the claimant's favour. The substantive claim regarding failure to make reasonable adjustments will be heard at the full merits hearing.

Facts

The claimant was employed by BT as an Account Manager from August 2022 to December 2023. She was dismissed due to poor attendance related to sickness. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service. This preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant was disabled. She relied on depression and anxiety (with medication since 2020), PTSD, and several physical conditions (patella dislocation, SVT, vasovagal syncope). She gave evidence of significant daily impacts on mood, concentration, motivation, and ability to function at work and in social situations. Medical evidence included a GP letter confirming diagnosis of mixed depression and anxiety since age 16, and prescription of Sertraline and Propranolol.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by virtue of depression and anxiety at the material time. The condition was long-term (diagnosed since 2014), had substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities (including prolonged sickness absence, difficulty with basic tasks, emotional exhaustion), and was controlled by medication which, if removed, would likely cause more severe symptoms. The tribunal did not find sufficient evidence of PTSD as a separate disabling condition. The physical conditions were relevant only insofar as they exacerbated the mental impairment. The substantive discrimination claims will proceed to a full merits hearing in January 2025.

Practical note

In disability discrimination cases, a claimant with a long-standing mental health condition controlled by medication can satisfy the disability test if the medication prevents more severe symptoms and the condition would otherwise have substantial adverse effects; the tribunal must distinguish between clinical depression/anxiety and mere reactions to workplace adversity.

Legal authorities cited

J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052Rugamer v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd [2001] IRLR 664Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall [2008] ICR 431Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610Ministry of Defence v Hay [2008] ICR 1247All Answers Ltd v Wain UKEAT/00232/20/ATGoodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.212(1)Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
1405880/2023
Decision date
21 August 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
Account Manager
Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep