In the case of Morris v Lauren Richards, the employment tribunal (ET) needed to find that the claimant was disabled in order for her claim of discrimination to proceed. It did not. Therefore, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to consider whether the original decision should stand by deciding whether the condition in question was ‘long term’.
The claimant was employed had previously been diagnosed with premature menopause, for which she had received counselling. Anxiety related to her employment began to impact the claimant around some months prior to her dismissal on the grounds of performance.
The claimant raised a claim for unfair dismissal, which was rejected due to the claimant’s length of service. They also alleged that the respondent had placed an unreasonable workload and responsibilities on them, which was to the detriment of their mental health. Further, they alleged no reasonable adjustments were put in place on their return to work.
The ET identified that the claimant suffered from an impairment, and that this began around May or June 2019, when the claimant began to feel overwhelmed at work and suffered a loss of confidence. This impairment, it was found, had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, and continued to do so at the point the claimant was dismissed from employment in September 2019.
For a condition to be a disability under the Equality Act, it must also be long-term. The Act sets out that an impairment is long-term if it has lasted for at least 12 months; it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.
The ET held that the impairment was not long-term. This was based on their finding that the anxiety was a result of issues at work, and there was nothing to indicate that it would likely persist once she had left the employment. She had been at that job for three months.
The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the decision was overturned.
The EAT found that the ET had erred in law in its reasoning that led to the decision that the claimant did not suffer from a disability, and that there was insufficient evidence before the original ET to make a decision on this matter. As a result, the EAT referred the matter back to the ET for a re-hearing on the matter of the long-term effect of the impairment.
The EAT accepted that there is no rule of law that it is necessary to have medical evidence in any given case and it is a matter of factual assessment for the tribunal on the evidence before it as to whether or not a particular effect is likely to persist.
Furthermore, the EAT stated that the ET will have to carry out an assessment of the position in September 2019, and whether at that time the impairment was likely to have a long-term effect, if the circumstances after the alleged discrimination had not taken place. It should have focussed, the EAT said, on whether the anxiety could well have continued to a sufficient extent to be covered by the Act regardless of the leaving the job. Only then could the ET turn to the question of whether or not a discriminatory act had taken place.