Ms T Sharmeen v Plumbridge Medical Centre and Dr N Jilani: 2301021/2025 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2301021/2025, 2300046/2024, 2305050/2025

Between

Ms T SharmeenClaimant

Plumbridge Medical Centre and Dr N JilaniRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Taylor

In person for claimant

Date 17 June 2025

REASONS

[1]The claimant has presented 3 claims which have been consolidated under case number 2301021/25. The claim is mainly against the GP practice who employ the claimant and Dr Jilani who is a GP member of that practice (‘The respondent’). The claimant has presented claims of direct discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010), harassment (section 26), and victimisation (section 27). The respondent has updated the draft List of Issues to include the additional claims made by the Claimant pursuant to her most recent claim filed on 8 January 2025 received by the Tribunal on 9 May 2025. This has not yet been discussed and finalised at a case management hearing. At the outset of this preliminary hearing, it was agreed that this hearing would limited to determining:(i) whether the claimant meets the definition of a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010;

(ii) Whether the respondent had knowledge of the claimant’s disability at the relevant time. The issue of disability

[2]The claimant brings claims of disability discrimination against the respondent. In order to pursue them. The claimant must qualify as a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Section 6 provides that a person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

[3]The relevant date for the purposes of determining disability is the date on which the alleged discriminatory act or acts occurred. For the purposes of this case the claimant claims that period is from about June 2022 to 28 October 2024. The burden is on the claimant to prove that she meets the section 6 criteria. The claimant relies on anxiety, depression and PTSD symptoms as her disability. To be liable for disability discrimination the respondents must have had actual or constructive knowledge of her disability at the relevant time. The respondent claims that it did not have actual or implied knowledge that the claimant had a disability during the relevant period.

[4]The claimant claims that at the end of 2022 and subsequently the respondent failed to deal with issues she had raised about unwanted comments made by Dr Jilani and about unreasonable treatment received from her and other members of the practice. The list of issues have yet to be finalised, but the claimant submitted that the first specific acts of disability discrimination occurred in October 2023, when she alleges the respondent cleared her office, changed the policy about remote working and did not permit her to work from home, removed responsibilities from her and moved her office to a room with no window.

The Hearing

[5]This was a hybrid hearing. At her request, the claimant attended the tribunal hearing in person with her husband, Mr Kumar. The respondent’s representative, Ms McKenzie, and the respondent’s witnesses attended the hearing by video (CVP).

[6]The respondent had provided an electronic bundle of documents comprising of 568 pages and a bundle of witness statements from the respondent’s witnesses. Reference is made to the page number of the documents in this bundle below. The claimant relied on her impact statement. Mr Kumar and the claimant spent some time at the outset of the hearing complaining that the respondent had prepared a bundle that did not include documents that the claimant wanted to have included. The claimant had prepared a hard copy of her own bundle. The Tribunal directed that the bundle prepared by the respondent would be used throughout this hearing and that if the claimant wished to refer to a missing document in her bundle that would be permitted. No such document was identified during the hearing. The claimant had access to a personal laptop and was able to navigate the electronic bundle and the hard copy bundles. The claimant complained that there were some documents containing unredacted medical evidence in the respondent’s bundle but she did not identify these documents.

[7]Finally, the claimant referred to recordings of meetings with the respondent held on 5 and 28 September 2024 that she had sent to the tribunal on the morning of the hearing. It was explained to the claimant that only full and authorised, or agreed transcriptions of meetings that had been served on the respondent in advance of this hearing would be permitted as evidence. It was made clear that the Tribunal did not grant permission for these recordings to be accepted as part of the evidence.

The Evidence

[8]The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and on behalf of the respondents from: Dr Kathravetpillai Gowry (WB19-25) Dr Nausheen Jilani (WB14-18) Dr Krishnarajah, Premalatha (WB 8-13) The claimant relied on her impact statement (Doc 407-19). Mr Aseem Kumar (WB 2-4) also provided a witness statement but was not called to give evidence. Dr Madhu Baksh (WB 5-7), the claimant’s mother-inlaw provided a witness statement on behalf of the claimant but was not called to give evidence. The hearing of the evidence and submissions concluded at 5.30pm. Therefore, there was insufficient time to arrive at a decision and the therefore the judgment and reasons were reserved.

The Issues

[9]Although the tribunal heard evidence on a variety of matters the finding of facts has been limited to those matters necessary to determine the following preliminary issues:(i) whether the claimant meets the definition of a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010;

(ii) Whether the respondent had knowledge of the claimant’s disability at the relevant time.

The facts

[10]The claimant was employed on 1 April 2015 as a Practice Manager working part-time hours. The claimant remains an employee of the respondent.

[11]The claimant claims that she has and has had an anxiety-related condition, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, which she contends amount to a mental impairment within the definition of section 6 Equality Act 2010.

[12]Dr Krishnarajah, Premalatha is a General Practitioner and was the lead partner at Plumbridge Medical Centre (“the Practice”). Dr Krishnarajah was the sole partner from April 2015 until 2023 when she was joined by Dr Kathravetpillai Gowry and Dr Nausheen Jilani.

[13]The claimant was employed by the Practice in April 2015 as its first Practice Manager. Dr Krishnarajah was the claimant’s direct line manager between 2015 and 2023. The claimant worked part-time on her appointment and an Assistant Practice Manager was also employed by the practice working part-time.

[14]Late 2022 and throughout 2023 was a period of change for the practice. Dr Krishnarajah had been a sole practitioner for some time, but new partners were due to join the partnership in April 2023.

[15]In August 2022 the Assistant Practice Manager resigned and the claimant began to work full-time, effectively combining the two roles.

[16]Dr Krishnarajah informed the claimant that she was considering employing another person to share the Practice Manager tasks. The claimant strongly resisted that proposal and expressed full confidence in her ability to work full-time and to perform all the tasks involved in this extended role. The claimant did not inform Dr Krishnarajah that she had any health-related concerns that might adversely affect her ability to manage the increased job demands and workload.

[17]The claimant gave evidence that as early as June 2022 she was very stressed due to work and was referred to a counsellor (Time to Talk) (251). The claimant also pointed to a prescription dated 28 June 2022 of 10mg Citalopram tablets, which is an anti-depressant and an entry in her GP records recording ‘She is very stressed with anxiety due to work and not sleeping properly’. The Citalopram tablets were prescribed for a duration of two weeks (255). The claimant also gave evidence that she had obtained privately, from India, Amitriptyline in 2021. The claimant describes Amitriptyline as an anti-depressant and the claimant gave evidence that she occasionally took Amitriptyline from June 2022. However, the claimant did not inform her GP that she had obtained or was self-medicating with Amitriptyline (254-5).

[18]During 2022, even though there were discussions about her working full-time and taking on extended duties, the claimant did not provide any information or medical evidence to the respondent that she had or may have been experiencing stress at work. The claimant did not inform Dr Krishnarajah that she had a mental impairment or that she was taking medication for a mental impairment.

[19]On 13 July 2022 the claimant was assessed by Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust under the Time to Talk programme. The summary of an initial assessment recorded that the claimant had severe symptoms of low mood and severe symptoms of anxiety and that the claimant had agreed to a course of guided self-help therapy (567). The claimant had up to two guided self-help sessions by November 2022 when she was voluntarily discharged from the service (568).

[20]The Tribunal considered whether the respondent ought to have known the claimant had a mental health impairment in or about June or July 2022. The claimant did not share the initial assessment with the respondent. Around this time, the claimant was expressing confidence in moving from part-time work to undertaking full time work. Therefore, the respondent was aware that the claimant was volunteering to take on more responsibilities, even to the extent of urging Dr Krishnarajah not to employ another person to share the duties Practice Manager. The Tribunal finds that against this background the respondent could not have known the claimant had or might have had a mental impairment throughout 2022.

[21]Dr Kathravetpillai Gowry and Dr Nausheen Jilani joined the partnership in or about April 2023.

[22]During 2023 the partners discovered that the claimant had fallen behind in her work. The claimant had generated a backlog in both administration and managerial tasks.

[23]On the 5 September 2023, a meeting took place involving all three partners and the claimant, the purpose of which was to identify and address the work-related issues.

[24]During this meeting the claimant made a serious allegation for the first time against a former employee. In the context of a discussion about re-employing the former assistant or deputy Practice Manager, the claimant told the partners of a distressing incident that she said had occurred involving the former employee and his conduct towards the claimant and her husband. During the exchanges, the claimant made an offensive comment towards Dr Jilani. This derailed the discussion which ended. A second meeting was arranged to take place on 28 September 2023, this time scheduled to be held just between the claimant, Dr Krishnarajah and Dr Gowry. The claimant did not inform the respondent that she had a mental health condition during this meeting.

[25]The purpose of the second meeting held on 28 September 2023 was to discuss once more the claimant’s workload and what adjustments could be made to make her work more manageable. While the claimant expressed her feelings about the meeting held on 5 September 2023, the minutes and transcribed notes show that claimant did not inform the partners on this date that she had a mental health condition (188-195, 557-566). There is no mention of PTSD in either meeting.

[26]The claimant contacted her GP on 28 September 2023 about her ongoing neck pains. The consultation did not include the claimant reporting a mental health condition (242).

[27]On the 2nd of October 2023, the claimant sent a message to Dr Gowry: “…without a window or day light I suffer with anxiety/ stress”. (455). This concerned the claimant’s working environment. Dr Gowry therefore understood the claimant’s feelings of anxiety and stress to be directly related to the lack of a window or natural daylight in her workspace. Dr Gowry took steps to resolve this issue.

[28]The claimant claims to have had a telephone call with Dr Gowry on 10 October 2023 and that she made a note for herself of that call (485). Dr Gowry has no recollection of that call.

[29]On the 11 October 2023 the claimant sent a message to Dr Gowry: “I feel ill and depressed. I do not think I can work with [two members of staff] tomorrow as I may have a breakdown or get emotional and I do not want my staff to see me in this condition. I have been wearing a mask to put up with what has been happening at work. As I had advised you for the past few weeks this has severely impacted on my wellbeing overall….’ (196-197). There was no mention of the telephone call said to have taken place the previous day to Dr Gowry in this message.

[30]The claimant gave evidence that she had also hand written a log on 11 October of her interaction with the respondent (487-8) but the document is undated and it is not possible to determine when it was written.

[31]Dr Gowry was aware the claimant had recently returned soon after having undergone a medical procedure. Dr Gowry understood this message to be an expression of how the claimant was feeling in that moment, possibly because she had returned to work too soon (505). Dr Gowry did not consider this message to be an indication that the claimant was suffering from a long-term mental health condition (196-197). Dr Gowry interpreted the comment about ‘wearing a mask’ as referring to the argument that had taken place between the claimant and Dr Jilani as well of the revisiting of the alleged incident with the former employee.

[32]The claimant contacted her GP on 12 October 2023 reporting feeling very low, informing the GP that she would like to start anti-depressants. The original diagnosis made on the statement of fitness for work (‘fit note’) was ‘Workplace stress, depression, not enough staff’. Later on that day, the claimant contacted her GP practice insisting that the diagnosis of ‘depression’ be removed from the fit note (241). The claimant began, what became, a period of long term absence from work.

[33]The claimant had delayed preparing the minutes of the 28 September meeting. When she provided the minutes on 18 October 2023 (188-195), Dr Gowry expressed concern that the minutes she had written were not an accurate record of the meeting and would not be accepted (458). The claimant had included that she ‘felt bullied, harassed, discriminated against, and it was severely impacted her mental health’. Dr Gowry gave evidence that she had not noticed that statement in the minutes, but even if she had noticed it she would not have regarded it as evidence of a formal mental health diagnosis.

[34]The first fit note obtained by the claimant and sent to the respondent was dated 19 October 2023. Her GP recorded a diagnosis of ‘Bullying and harassment at the work place’. The claimant was advised as being unfit for work for 6 weeks, ending 30 November 2023 (198).

[35]The Claimant raised a grievance against all partners on 19 October 2023.

[36]A second fit note, issued on 22 November 2023 advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 29 January 2024, because of ‘stress at work’ (199).

[37]The claimant’s medical records have an entry of a depressive episode on 15 December 2023 (272).

[38]The claimant submitted a claim to the employment tribunal which included an allegation of disability discrimination, received on 4 January 2024.

[39]A third fit note, issued on 30 January 2024 diagnosed a condition of ‘multiple stresses at work’ and advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 14 February 2024 (259).

[40]A fourth fit note issued on 1 February 2024 advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 31 March 2024 because of: ‘Anxiety and depression. Time off to spend more time with family, and friends and avoid work stresses’ (200).

[41]This was the first time the respondent was notified by the claimant’s GP that the claimant had a mental health impairment.

[42]The claimant gave evidence that her symptoms included social withdrawal, isolation, and loss of ability to engage with others (407). However, the claimant’s evidence was inconsistent, in that it is recorded that she wanted to travel abroad and was trying to persuade her GP to write that on her fit note. Although the claimant gave evidence that she wanted to travel abroad to stay with her mother: ‘Patient requesting to put on sick note - may benefit from 'time away', advised that I cannot specifically suggest this, but can put time to spend more time with family - whether this is away or not is up to her’

[43]The claimant sought to return to work and sent an email to the respondent on 4 October 2024: ‘I am feeling much better in myself and am ready to return to my role as practice manager. I am writing to advise you that I have been signed off by my GP as fit to return to work with the following adjustments. ‘To start working from home during this difficult time to support mental health wellbeing, to help create supportive environment.’ As I have been absent for so long and still suffer with post traumatic disorder and anxiety, I would like to return on a phased return from 7th Oct and to work from home, to allow me time to ease back in’. (207, 382)

[44]The respondent replied on the same day explaining that ‘We have received a sick note from yourself on the 30.09.2024 in which you were signed off on sick leave until 25.10.2024 due to Anxiety. Today we have received a fit note in which there was no mention of phased return to work. The note has stated that you are still suffering with Anxiety and depression. We are very concerned that 4 days after you were signed off with Anxiety for whole month you are now fit to work with anxiety and depression from the 04.10.2024. We do not wish to put pressure on you for your return to work as this is a concerning matter. We decided to continue with Dr. Gurung's medical certificate dated 27.09.24- 4 weeks sick leave. Your GP's fit note on the 04.10.2024 was not clear as to how he completed your fitness to work assessment. He clearly stated that you have anxiety and depression but no mention of any support system was offered to improve your condition. As you have been away on a long term sick leave, you can not resume work from home and would need to complete some training of our new systems that the NHS has implemented at the practice….’(384)

[45]The claimant’s medical records show an entry dated 23 October 2024 that her ‘anxiety disorder’ ended on 21 November 2024 (253). This is document was not seen by the respondent at the time.

[46]On 28 October 2024 the respondent held a return to work meeting. (This was transcribed - 427-453.) The claimant informed the respondent that she had anxiety and depression and PTSD. The respondent was not willing to allow the claimant to return to work unless she was first assessed as fit to return. Therefore, the respondent made an Occupational Health Referral on 28 November 2024 (324-330 at 330).

[47]In addition to requesting an assessment of whether the claimant was fit enough to carry out the duties of an NHS GP Practice Manager, the respondent asked the specific question of whether the claimant was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to her work to be addressed. This was because the diagnosis had not appeared in any of the claimant’s fit notes. For reasons outside of the respondent’s control the final assessment was delayed. The report was released on 18 December 2024. The report did not return a diagnosis of PTSD and confirmed that no such formal diagnosis had been made by any of the claimant’s medical practitioners (535-9). The applicable law

[48]The definition of “disability” is set out in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. Section 6 provides as follows: – “6. Disability (1) a person (P) has a disability if- (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse affect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

[49]Paragraphs 2, 5, and 8 of schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 provide:a. The effect of an impairment is long-term if it has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months, or is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. Further, an impairment which ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to re-occur;

b. Impairments are to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect if measures are being taken to treat or correct it and but for that, it would be likely to have that effect;

c. ….

[50]Section 212 of the Equality Act 2010, sets out that “substantial” means “more than minor or trivial“. This is a relatively low threshold (Leonard –v- the South Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce

(2001) IRLR 19

[51]An impairment may have a substantial adverse effect even if the relevant effect is not caused by the impairment directly. The Equality Act requires a causal link between the impairment and the substantial long-term adverse effect, but it does not require that the causal link is a direct causal link. In Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris

UKEAT/0031/12

the EAT held: ‘…if on the evidence the impairment causes the substantial adverse effect on ability to carry out day-to-day activities it is not material that there is an intermediate step between the impairment and its effect provided there is a causal link between the two’

[52]The cumulative effect of more than one impairment should be taken into account by the Employment Tribunal. In Ginn –v- Tesco Stores Ltd

UKEAT/0197/05

, the EAT held that the question for the Employment Tribunal to determine is whether the combined effect of the impairments is to have a substantial adverse effect on the employees ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The Employment Tribunal is to be concerned with the impairment itself not the cause of the impairment (College of Ripon and York St John V Hobbs

(2002) IRLR 185

[53]Under Schedule 8 paragraph 20 of the EqA 2010, an employer is not subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments if it does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the employee had a disability. It is for the tribunal on the facts to find whether the employer had constructive knowledge of the disability. The submissions

[54]The parties gave oral submissions and provided written closing submissions.

[55]The respondent submitted that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that she was a disabled person at the material time and that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of that disability. The claimant asserts she was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression. However, the medical records do not support the existence of a substantial or long-term adverse effect at the material time.

[56]The first recorded presentation of anxiety and depression conditions appears in December 2023 (272). By November 2024, the claimant’s GP records show she “felt better”, was reducing her medication and was ready to return to work (227). There was no reference to PTSD, anxiety, depression in the fit notes until significantly after the claimant’s absence began and after the Tribunal proceedings had started.

[57]The alleged act of discrimination took place in October 2024, and therefore the claimant’s condition had lasted less than 12 months at the material time. The claimant has also failed to particularise the substantial adverse effect she claims to have experienced in relation to day-to-day activities. The claimant was not clinically assessed for needing intervention for inability to carry out day-to-day tasks (B475). The claimant has never claimed, nor provided any contemporaneous evidence, that she was unable to complete day-to-day tasks associated with her job role.

[58]The claimant seeks to rely on sick notes that post-date her claim, and these refer to anxiety and depression (B198-208). The Tribunal is reminded that a sick note is not determinative of disability (Mr Ian McCubbin v Perth & Kinross Council

UKEATS/0025/13/BI

). Moreover, there is no reference to anxiety depression or PTSD in the claimant’s sick notes prior to the submission of the claim.

[59]The claimant alleges disclosure of her mental impairment on the 5 September 2023, 28 September 2023, and the 11 October 2024. The claimant made no mention of any condition but spoke about a recent argument affecting her wellbeing and mental health (B407- 419). These were transient feelings and not indicative of a mental health condition.

[60]The claimant submitted that the medical evidence taken together with her impact statement show that she has had a mental impairment which has had a long term effect on her ability to carry out normal day to day activities. The claimant referred to a number of case law precedents.

[61]The claimant submitted that the tribunal could find that she had a mental illness even without formal evidence, if the claimant could demonstrate that it had long-term and substantial effect of their life. Her mental illness arose from stresses at work.

[62]Mental illness as a result of workplace bullying could be considered a disability. Although she did not have a formal diagnosis at the time of the incidents the effect of her ability to work and engage with daily activities were profound. The claimant submitted she experienced psychological distress which meets the required legal standard. The Tribunal’s conclusions

[63]The claimant gave evidence that she has a mental impairment and that her disability is anxiety, depression and PTSD.

[64]The Tribunal considered whether the claimant had these impairments.

[65]The claimant’s GP and other medical records show that in June 2022 the claimant reported feeling anxious to her GP.

[66]On 13 July 2022 the claimant was assessed by Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. The initial clinical assessment confirmed that the claimant had severe symptoms of low mood and severe symptoms of anxiety at that time (567). This was an initial assessment which was relied on to recommend the claimant have some sessions of self-guided therapy.

[67]On 2 October 2023 the claimant had complained to her manager of experiencing anxiety or stress in the context of her unsatisfactory workstation location. On the 11 October 2023 the claimant sent a message to Dr Gowry: “I feel ill and depressed..”

[68]The claimant next contacted her GP on 12 October 2023 reporting a mental health related condition (241). On this occasion the claimant complained of workplace stress due to an unmanageable workload.

[69]The first fit note sent to the respondent was dated 19 October 2023, recording a diagnosis of ‘Bullying and harassment at the workplace’. Bullying and harassment is not a mental impairment, although such conduct can affect a person’s mental health. The claimant was advised as being unfit for work for 6 weeks, ending 30 November 2023 (198). The second fit note, issued on 22 November 2023 advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 29 January 2024, due to ‘stress at work’ (199).

[70]The claimant is first recorded as having anxiety and depression in a GP note dated December 2023 (272).

[71]The Tribunal considered whether the claimant had established that she had a anxiety, depression and PTSD during 2024. A third fit note, issued on 30 January 2024 diagnosed the claimant with a condition of ‘multiple stresses at work’ and advised the claimant was unfit for work until 14 February 2024 (259). Multiple stresses at work is not a diagnosis of a mental health impairment of anxiety, depression and PTSD.

[72]The fourth fit note issued on 1 February 2024 advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 31 March 2024 because of: ‘Anxiety and depression. Time off to spend more time with family, and friends and avoid work stresses’ (200). A succession of fit notes diagnosed the claimant with anxiety and depression (229, 231-233).

[73]The claimant received a fit note issued on 30 September 2024 in which the claimant was assessed as unfit to work until 25 October 2024, diagnosed with ‘Anxiety’, although this was the claimant subsequently received a fit note dated 4 October 2024, assessing that she was fit to return to work with workplace adaptions on 4 October 2024 (207, 382).

[74]The claimant’s medical records include an entry dated 23 October 2024 that her ‘anxiety disorder’ ended on 21 November 2024 (253).

[75]The claimant has provided as evidence PTSD scores in a document dated 15 January 2025 giving an indication that she requires treatment (476-8).

[76]Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal finds the claimant had a mental health impairment ‘anxiety and depression’ in December 2023 continuing until 21 November 2024. The relevant date for the purpose of these proceedings is October 2024. It follows that the claimant did not have the impairment of anxiety, and depression or PTSD for 12 months by the relevant date.

[77]In order to decide whether the claimant meets the definition of a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 it is necessary to consider whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out day to day tasks. The claimant claims to have experienced a considerable range of adverse effects on her ability to carry to day-to-day activities. Although there is medical evidence that the claimant experienced low mood, and an occasional panic attack, for the most part there is no evidence that the anxiety, and depression affected her ability to carry out normal day to day activity. The effect the claimant contends is not corroborated or verified in her medical records. For example, there is no evidence to be found in the claimant’s medical notes that she required additional help because of her inability to carry out day to day tasks. The Tribunal bears in mind that the claimant did not continue counselling. There is also evidence that the claimant wanted to travel abroad while absent on sick leave, which is inconsistent with her submissions on this point.

[78]The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish the substantial adverse effect condition.

[79]Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the effect of the impairments of anxiety, depression started on 15 December 2023 and stopped in October 2024, when the Claimant was diagnosed as fit to return to work. The Tribunal therefore concludes that at the relevant October 2024, the disability of anxiety and depression had not lasted for 12 months.

[80]The Tribunal must consider whether the effect of an impairment is long-term. Long term means that the impairment lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months, or is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person. The date at which the assessment must be made is at the relevant date.

[81]By October 2024 the claimant had been assessed as fit to return to work by her GP, with adaptations. At the return to work meeting held on 28 October 2024 the claimant repeated that she had anxiety and depression and was taking medication. However, by November 2024 the ‘anxiety disorder’ had been recorded by her GP as ended. The Tribunal concludes therefore that there was no evidence that the anxiety and depression would last longer than one year.

[82]The Tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had PTSD 12 months at the relevant date.

[83]The Tribunal therefore conclude that the claimant had a mental impairment of anxiety and depression, that the impairment did not substantially affect her ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

[84]The date of the alleged act of discrimination was October 2024. The disability lasted from 15 December 2023 to October 2024. Therefore at the date of the alleged discrimination, the impairment had not lasted for 12 months. At October 2024, the impairment was not likely to last for over one year, given that the medical evidence recorded the anxiety condition ended in November 2024.

[85]Therefore for all these reasons the Tribunal find that the claimant does not meet the definition of a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

[86]The Tribunal heard evidence about the respondent’s knowledge. Had the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had a disability within the meaning of the Act, the Tribunal would have accepted the evidence of the respondent that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability.

[87]The claimant’s absence from work on sick leave coincided with difficult discussions about concerns over her work, which concluded in challenging circumstances. There had not been any suggestion by the claimant before that an ill health condition had affected her ability to carry out her work. The first the respondent knew of a possible disability was after the first claim to the Employment Tribunal had been presented, on 4 January 2024. By a fourth fit note dated 1 February 2024 the respondent was advised that the claimant was unfit for work until 31 March 2024 because of: ‘Anxiety and depression. Time off to spend more time with family, and friends and avoid work stresses’ (200).

[88]The Tribunal there concludes that at the relevant date, October 2024, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known that the claimant was a disabled person. Approved by: