Claimant v Maidstone Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The tribunal determined the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The substantive whistleblowing claims were not heard. The respondent conceded disability in respect of dyslexia.
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The tribunal determined the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The substantive automatic unfair dismissal claim was not heard.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The respondent conceded disability in respect of dyslexia. The substantive direct disability discrimination claims were not determined at this hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The respondent conceded disability in respect of dyslexia. The substantive s15 claims were not determined at this hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The respondent conceded disability in respect of dyslexia. The substantive reasonable adjustments claims were not determined at this hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The respondent conceded disability in respect of dyslexia. The substantive harassment related to disability claims were not determined at this hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The substantive sex discrimination claims were not heard at this preliminary hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The substantive harassment related to sex claims were not heard at this preliminary hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The substantive victimisation claims were not heard at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a waste crime officer for Maidstone Borough Council from June 2022 to January 2023. She was absent from work from 30 September 2022 until dismissal, principally due to stress. The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled in respect of dyslexia. The claimant asserted she was also disabled due to ADHD (diagnosed May 2022), endometriosis (diagnosis date disputed between 2014, 2016, and 2023), and a stress fracture (sustained January 2023, diagnosed March 2023 after employment ended). The tribunal found the claimant's evidence confused and contradictory, with significant gaps in medical evidence.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time in respect of ADHD, endometriosis, or stress fracture. The stress fracture occurred after employment ended. While ADHD was a mental impairment with long-term effect, the claimant failed to establish it had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities—her examples were minor and similar to what non-disabled people experience. For endometriosis, the claimant provided virtually no examples of substantial effect, had no work absence due to it, and the tribunal could not be satisfied it was long-term given surgical intervention.
Practical note
A diagnosis of a condition does not automatically satisfy the statutory definition of disability under s6 Equality Act 2010; claimants must provide clear, cogent evidence with adequate medical support that the condition has a substantial (more than trivial) and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2300751/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Waste crime officer
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No