The Claimant was a sales executive with a small finance company. From about July 2013, following a split with a Ukrainian girlfriend, the Claimant suffered paranoid delusions that he was being followed and stalked by a Russian gang. These delusions affected his timekeeping, attendance and record-keeping (which were already a matter of concern even before 2013). However, things improved after September 2013. Whilst there were sporadic references to the Claimant’s poor attitude in that period, it was not until April 2017 that there was a worsening of the effect of the paranoid delusions on his day-to-day activities. The Claimant’s employment was terminated on 8 September 2017, ostensibly for reasons to do with capability and attitude. The Claimant lodged a claim complaining of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and deduction of wages (amongst others). The Tribunal held that he did not have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. However, his claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.
Held (dismissing the appeal), that the Tribunal did not err in concluding that the long-term requirement in the definition of disability was not met. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude on the evidence that, although there was a substantial adverse effect in 2013 and again in 2017, in neither case was it likely that the adverse effect would last for 12 months or that it would recur. The Tribunal had correctly applied ‘likely’ as if it meant ‘could well happen’, and had approached the question of the likelihood of recurrence correctly. The Tribunal also did not err in deciding that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability.
References: [2020] UKEAT 0317 – 19 – 0909
Links: Bailii
Judges: Choudhury J P
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653918
