Claimant v British Airways Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant had cardiomyopathy but provided insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. Medical evidence showed he was asymptomatic and stable in February-May 2022. Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the tribunal determined the claimant did not meet the definition of disability under section 6 EqA. The claimant failed to prove that his cardiomyopathy had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time, despite taking medication.
The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled. The tribunal concluded the claimant's condition was regulated by medication, medical evidence showed he was well and asymptomatic, and he could not demonstrate that stress caused cardiomyopathy symptoms affecting normal activities during the relevant period.
Facts
Mr Kang, a cargo handling agent at British Airways since June 2016, claimed disability discrimination based on his cardiomyopathy diagnosed in 1996. The relevant period was 31 December 2021 to 30 September 2022. He was taking Ramipril medication daily. In February 2022 his GP stated he was stable, asymptomatic, and his condition was not affecting his day-to-day life. In May 2022 GP notes recorded no day-to-day impairment with his heart. Following a work incident on 30 September 2022 (being told he was driving illegally), he experienced stress-related symptoms and has been off work since October 2022.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims for want of jurisdiction, finding the claimant was not disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The judge concluded the claimant failed to prove his cardiomyopathy had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. Medical evidence showed he was stable and symptom-free, and he could not provide adequate evidence of what he could not do or the deduced effects without medication. The tribunal found his evidence unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding inability to exercise (which was due to knee problems) and stress-related incidents (which were isolated life events outside the relevant period).
Practical note
Claimants relying on the deduced effects of medication to establish disability must provide clear medical evidence of what symptoms would occur without treatment, their severity and frequency, as the tribunal will not accept generalised assertions or rely on events outside the relevant period to demonstrate substantial adverse effects.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301936/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Cargo Handling Agent
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister