N D Castro v Advanced Plastic Technology Ltd: 3302632/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3302632/2024
Between
N D CastroClaimantAdvanced Plastic Technology LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge W AndersonDate 14 May 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant is disabled as defined in s6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of suffering from coronary artery disease.[2]She has been disabled by this condition since 27 July 2023.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent form 1 February 2023 until her dismissal on 3 November 2023. She filed a claim of disability discrimination on 28 February 2024. It is her case that she is disabled by coronary artery disease. The respondent admits that the claimant suffers from coronary artery disease but does not accept that she is disabled by that condition for the purposes of s6(1) of the Equality Act 2010.[2]The case came before me on 21 February 2023 for the purposes of deciding whether the claimant is disabled as defined at s6(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
The Hearing
[3]The respondent filed a bundle of 79 documents. Mr Sinclair said that it did not contain all documents relevant to the substantive claim but it contained all relevant medical information submitted by the claimant. Ms Omotosho also filed written submissions. The claimant did not file a witness statement for the purposes of this hearing but gave oral evidence on oath at the hearing. Both parties made oral submissions.
Facts
[4]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 1 February 2023 until her dismissal on 3 November 2023.[5]The claimant suffers from coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary Artery Disease is incurable. I accept the claimant’s uncontested evidence that without treatment the condition is likely to worsen leading to a heart attack and possible death. The advice of the cardiologist set out below supports the view that the condition is incurable and will worsen without treatment, as she refers to the patient requiring aggressive secondary prevention.[6]She has suffered from this condition since at least 27 July 2023.[7]She was taken ill on 27 July 2023 resulting in an ambulance being called and the claimant being taken to hospital. This visited resulted in a referral to a chest pain clinic and from there to a cardiologist. In a letter from the cardiologist to the patient’s GP dated 3 October 2023, she escribes the patient’s condition as follows: There is therefore evidence of early and extensive coronary artery disease orbit it is unlikely from the images that these are obstructive to floor and would cause symptoms. She however does need aggressive secondary prevention and if not already done so she should be established on aspirin 75 mg daily Atorvastatin 80 mg daily, Bisoprolol 2.5 mg daily to help with blood pressure control as well as reducing any possible cardiac symptoms. If she is unable to take Bisoprolol due to asthma then an alternative would be to up titrate the Amlodipine and/or consider Dilitazepam or Verapamil, or indeed Ivabradine long term to reduce heart rate at rest. I note that she is already on an ACE inhibitor.[8]The claimant takes the following medications: Amlodipine; Indapamide, a water tablet, Atorvastatin, Metformin, and Bisoprolol.[9]The claimant said that the medication makes her feel dizzy, gives her blurred vision and severe headaches as well as an intermittent upset stomach. I accept this evidence.[10]As a result of the diagnosis the claimant has stopped smoking and drinking, she has changed her diet and lost weight.[11]The claimant says that the effect of the CAD is that she tires very easily, and this has had the consequent effect that she rarely goes out other than to work, has trouble with housework and prefers not to drive. It is set out in the medical evidence that she suffers from shortness of breath. Though I accept the claimant’s evidence that she suffers from tiredness and its consequent effects, I make no finding on whether this symptom is one that definitively results from CAD. Shortness of breath is one of the symptoms described in the British Heart Foundation online information about CAD that was included in the bundle and I find that is a symptom the claimant suffers from that results from CAD.[12]The claimant set out in her pleadings that the effects of her condition were: …extreme blood pressure highs daily, migraine headaches, nausea and sweating, fatigue, hot and cold flashes, insomnia, abnormal bladder and bone movements, lack of concentration, anxiety and depression, dizziness and weakness. Also due to the amount of daily medication additional internal pains in muscles and liver. I have found above that some of these symptoms are suffered by the claimant and are caused by her medication. I accept that that the claimant suffers from all of the symptoms referred to in this paragraph but other than as set out at paragraphs 9 and 11 above I make no finding on whether the remaining symptoms are caused either by CAD or the medication she takes to stop her condition form deteriorating. Decision and reasons:[13]I need to decide whether the claimant was disabled under the definition set out at s6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts. 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 effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.[14]Those acts are said to have taken place between 4 February 2023 and 3 November 2023. I have taken that information from the list of issues in the case management order dated 1 October 2024 as it was not one addressed with me in the hearing.[15]As Ms Omotosho stated in her submissions, the tribunal should consider the following four factors when determining whether a person is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 as set out in the case of Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302 EAT; 1. Did the claimant have a mental and/or physical impairment? 2. Did the impairment affect the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities (the adverse effect condition)? 3. Was the adverse effect condition substantial? 4. Was the adverse effect condition long term? Did the claimant have a physical or mental impairment.[16]I find that the claimant had a physical impairment in the form of coronary artery disease as set out in the letter of Dr Kathleen Rose dated 3 October 2023 from which I have quoted above. It is an incurable condition, and the instructions of the cardiologist are that aggressive secondary prevention is necessary by way of treatment. Did the impairment affect the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities?[17]I find that the impairment affected the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. In order to prevent a worsening of the claimant’s condition she is prescribed a cocktail of drugs. Some of these are for high blood pressure. One of the causative effects of the claimant’s CAD is high blood pressure and therefore one of the ways of preventing the CAD worsening is control of her blood pressure. Some medication is for the side effects of other drugs and some specifically to do with treating CAD (the claimant said Atorvastatin and Bisoprolol). The effects of the medication, which are taken because of the impairment, are to cause her dizziness, blurred vision and an upset stomach. These are all symptoms which affect a person’s daily life and the activities they chose to do, and I accept that they have affected the claimant in her daily life. Was the adverse effect condition substantial?[18]Substantial is defined in S.212(1) Equality Act 2010 as meaning ‘more than minor or trivial’ and in determining whether the adverse effect is substantial the tribunal must compare the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day tasks with the ability the claimant would have if not impaired.[19]The respondent’s position is that on the medical evidence there are no symptoms of CAD at all and no evidence from the claimant of any evidence of symptoms that have a substantial adverse impact on her, as she continues to work.[20]I have accepted the claimant’s evidence that’s she suffers from dizziness, blurred vision, headaches and an upset stomach due to the side effects of her medication. These are all symptoms that arise from her condition of CAD in that, they result from the treatment of that condition. The claimant also suffers from shortness of breath and claimed she tired more easily than she had done before she was taken to hospital on 27 July 2023. While I cannot conclude that tiredness is definitely a symptom of coronary heart disease, it seems to me entirely reasonable to think that the nature of the claimant’s illness and the side effects of her medication would be likely to lead to her feeling less energetic than she has in the past. She has said that because of her symptoms, including the side effects, other than going to work, which she must do as she needs the money, she now rarely goes out, that she no longer drives and can do less housework.[21]I find that the adverse condition has a substantial effect on the claimant. Was the adverse effect condition long term?[22]The adverse effect of the impairment is clearly long term. The claimant has been diagnosed with an incurable disease, and she requires aggressive secondary action to ensure that the condition does not worsen. It is that treatment which is, in the main, affecting her ability to carry out day to day activities. There is nothing in the medical evidence to suggest that the treatment she is receiving is anything other than long term. The claimant is today still taking the medications suggested by Dr Rose in October 2023.[23]It is my decision that the claimant is disabled for the purposes of s6(1) Equality act 2010. Date of disability[24]The claimant claims to have been disabled from 27 July 2023. All of the evidence provided was that this is when she became seriously ill and subsequently required treatment. While it is unlikely a disease such as CAD is present one day and not the next, the only evidence before me relates to the period from 27 July 2023 and therefore I find that the claimant was disabled from that date and continues to be so. Approved by:
Facts
[1]The following complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability are well-founded and succeed: i. On 9 October 2023 a meeting took place between Mr Todd and the claimant, during which the claimant says he summarily dismissed her. ii. Dismissing the claimant on 3 November 2023.[2]The remaining complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability are not well-founded and are dismissed.[3]The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not wellfounded and is dismissed. Case no. 3302632/24[4]The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums, with the interest amounts having been calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996: i. Compensation for past financial losses: £13,544.01 comprised of: - lost wages of £13,081.84 - lost employer pension contributions of £420.03 - expenses of £42.14 ii. Interest on compensation for past financial losses: £921.78 iii. Compensation for injury to feelings: £11,200 iv. Interest on compensation for injury to feelings: £1,431.15 TOTAL: £27,096.94 Approved by: