Claimant v City of Edinburgh Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined only that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the material period (July 2022 to June 2023). The substantive merits of the discrimination claim have not yet been heard.
This preliminary hearing determined only disability status. The claimant's complaint that the respondent's failure to progress disciplinary and grievance processes was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability has not yet been determined on the merits.
This preliminary hearing determined only disability status. The claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to disciplinary and grievance processes has not yet been determined on the merits.
Facts
Mr Singh, a Building Surveyor employed by the City of Edinburgh Council since December 2017, was notified in 2018 of an investigation into misconduct allegations. He went off sick in June 2019 with work-related stress and remained absent through to the date of the preliminary hearing. From April 2019 onwards he experienced anxiety, disrupted sleep, poor concentration, low mood, impotence, tremors, and social withdrawal. He was prescribed Sertraline (antidepressant), Propranolol (beta-blockers) and Amitriptyline (for tension headaches) from 2019 onwards, with some gaps in prescription. He attended mental health courses offered by Wellbeing Services Glasgow and Inner Space Glasgow. He brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 sections 13, 15 and 20, alleging the respondent failed to progress disciplinary and grievance processes and failed to make reasonable adjustments from July 2022 onwards.
Decision
The tribunal determined that Mr Singh was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period (July 2022 to June 2023). The tribunal found he had a mental impairment that had substantial and long-term adverse effects on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities such as sleeping, reading, concentrating, and engaging in social interaction. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the claimant's condition was merely an adverse reaction to circumstances rather than a mental impairment, noting the substantial nature and longevity of the effects. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence despite gaps in GP notes and some periods without prescription.
Practical note
A work-related stress condition that has substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities lasting more than 12 months can constitute a mental impairment even without a formal diagnosis of clinical depression or anxiety disorder, and even where symptoms were initially triggered by workplace issues.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4103527/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Building Surveyor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor