Case No 4100077/2026Venue EdinburghHearing 5 August 2026
Between
Mr D ShortClaimantTCMM Shutter Group LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge A JonesMrs Short (claimant’s wife) for claimantMr Barratt, solicitor for respondentDate 13 August 2026
JUDGMENT
The claimant was not a disabled person at the material time (between October 2025 and 10 February 2026), and his claim of disability discrimination is dismissed. The remaining claim of unlawful deduction from wages will be determined at a one-day hearing on 13 October 2026 in Edinburgh before an
REASONS
[1]The claimant lodged a claim on 12 January 2026 claiming that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of disability and that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from his wages. The claimant then resigned from his employment with the respondent on 10 February 2026 and amended his claim to include a claim that the termination of his employment amounted to disability discrimination.[2]The respondent did not accept that the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability at the material time (being between October 2025 and the claimant’s resignation on 10 February 2026). A preliminary hearing was listed to determine this issue.[3]The claimant gave evidence and was cross examined. A joint bundle of documents was produced, and the respondent provided a bundle of authorities to which reference was made during submissions.[4]Having listened to the evidence and having regard to the documents to which reference was made in the evidence, the Tribunal made the following findings in fact: Findings in fact[5]The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 6 February 2025. His role was that of a field-based shutter specialist which involved the sale and installation of shutters and blinds.[6]The claimant has never suffered from any mental health conditions in his past despite challenging circumstances when growing up.[7]The claimant raised a grievance with the respondent regarding various issues on 3 October 2025. In that grievance he stated “This situation has left me feeling demotivated, undervalued, and concerned about fairness in how the bonus structure is being applied. It has also affected my wellbeing, leaving me frustrated and anxious.”[8]The grievance was not upheld, and that decision was communicated to the claimant on 22 October. The claimant appealed against that outcome and stated in the appeal grounds “The prolonged uncertainty regarding my role, inconsistent allocation of work, and the perception of being replaced or transitioned to selfemployment have caused considerable stress and anxiety. As a father of three, the resulting financial insecurity has affected both my mental health and family life.” The claimant attended an appeal hearing on 5 November.[9]The claimant was off sick from 3 November and did not return to work prior to his resignation on 10 February 2026. 10.The claimant was informed that his appeal was not upheld on 19 November 2025. 11.When the claimant attended his GP on 3 November, he reported stress and that this arose from his work situation. A diagnosis was recorded as “stress at work” and a fit note issued. 12.Following a telephone consultation on 29 December a further fit note was issued which made reference to stress at work. The GP recorded the claimant as having informed him that he was still experiencing significant work-related stress and not sleeping. The record noted “ACAS are involved so hopeful of resolution but needs fit note from 6 Jan to 3 Feb.” 13.The claimant saw his GP again on 12 February and who recorded “issues with work went to tribunal, causing him stress/impact on MH. Decided to leave job. Fitter/sales blinds and shutters. Work only offered occ health later. Getting emails for work at 10.30pm causes stress and cannot sleep. Emotional. Feels like he is a financial burden as financial responsibility is falling on {…}. Goes to bed at 11pm, falls asleep midnight but then awake at 3am. Will get up. Tried magnesium and Kalms. Will listen to a comedy or exercise. Feels anxious feels sob and heart racing. Low mood…..”. The GP prescribed the claimant propranolol and sertraline. 14.The claimant has continued to take these medications and does not expect to stop taking them until he is advised to do so by his GP. He has been referred to a Wellbeing Hub and has developed a plan with their assistance to manage his stress and anxiety. The claimant would find it very difficult to cope with everyday life without this medication. 15.While the claimant had been a lead coach in a youth football team, he now only assists and often finds it difficult to go through drills with the children which he previously would have found straightforward as he becomes stressed and anxious. He has stopped playing football with other coaches and does not socialise other than with the coaches. His sleep remains disturbed and he sleeps 4 to 5 hours a night.
Relevant law
[16]The protected characteristic of disability is set out in section 6 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”). There are four aspects which must be satisfied for a claimant to meet the requirements of section 6. The claimant must have an impairment, which can be either physical or mental; that impairment must have an adverse impact on the claimant’s ability to perform normal day to day activities; that impact must be substantial, and the impact must be long term. Guidance was issued in 2011 in order to assess whether a claimant meets the requirements set out. 17.In submissions, Mr Barratt referred to Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4; Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699; McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227; SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 54; J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] IRLR 936; Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council and anor [2017] ICR 610; Seccombe v Reed in Partnership ltd 2021 WL 08263477; Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant[2020] IRLR 363 and Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd [2022] IRLR 194. Discussion and decision[18]The respondent’s position was that none of the requirements of the definition of disability had been met. 19.The respondent’s position was that stress and anxiety was not an impairment in the claimant’s case. The respondent appeared to suggest that there was no diagnosis of any condition during the relevant period. 20.The claimant’s position was that he had started suffering from symptoms in July/August 2025 and had not wanted to acknowledge that he was finding it difficult to cope. When he went to his GP on 3 November, he told the GP about the symptoms he had been suffering from. The claimant was not prescribed medication until 12 February 2026 which is after the material time. However, the Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that during the relevant period he was suffering from symptoms such as insomnia, racing heart, panic attacks, being short of breath from July/August and that these symptoms worsened until 3 November when he felt the need to attend his GP. The symptoms then continued through to 10 February and continue now. The claimant remained under the care of his GP, was diagnosed with “stress at work” and was referred to other organisations for support. 21.The respondent’s position was that the claimant was simply aggrieved at his work circumstances and his grievance not being upheld. The Tribunal did not accept that position. It is not relevant what the cause of an impairment might be if a claimant can establish that they had an impairment. The impairment might be caused by a work situation or external factors, but the relevant question is whether or not the claimant has an impairment. The Tribunal did not accept the submission that the claimant simply had an unjustified sense of grievance, it accepted his evidence about the symptoms he was suffering from, that these were genuine and that these amounted to an impairment. 22.Therefore, the Tribunal accepts that the claimant had an impairment, of stress and anxiety during the relevant period. 23.The next question is whether that impairment had an adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to perform normal day to day activities. The claimant relied in particular on his inability to sleep, that he had stopped exercising in the way he had before, that he had stopped coaching football in the way he had before, that he did not socialise in the way he had before and that he suffered from brain fog, in that he would forget things his wife had said almost immediately which caused friction at home. 24.The Tribunal accepted that this amounted to an adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to perform normal day to day activities and also accepted that the effect was more than minor or trivial and therefore met the requirements of “substantial”. 25.The final question to be addressed was whether that impairment was long term. This required the impairment to have lasted or be likely to last for 12 months or more. In the claimant’s case, the impairment started around 3 November, when he went to his GP. Although he had been suffering from symptoms prior to that point, the Tribunal formed the view that those symptoms had not been sufficiently serious to amount to an impairment until that date. 26.The claimant continued to suffer from the impairment throughout the rest of his employment which terminated on 10 February. Therefore, by this stage the impairment had not lasted for 12 months or more. 27.The Tribunal appreciates that the claimant’s impairment is likely to last for 12 months or more now. However, that view is formulated with the knowledge of what has happened between February and August 2026 and what is likely to happen in the next few months, given that the claimant is likely to continue to require to take medication to control his symptoms throughout that time. 28.However, the relevant question to be considered is whether during the period of October 2025 to February 2026 the impairment was likely to last for 12 months. The burden is on the claimant to establish that state of affairs and the Tribunal must come to a view on the balance of probabilities. The essential question is, looking at the situation between October 2025 and February 2026 was it more likely than not that the claimant would continue to have the impairment of stress anxiety for at least 12 months. 29.The Tribunal simply did not have sufficient evidence to establish that this was more likely than not. As candidly accepted by the claimant in evidence, people suffer from stress and anxiety throughout their lives often in response to difficult sets of circumstances. This is often called reactive stress, as it is in reaction to life events. That condition may well resolve when the circumstances which caused the stress are removed. While in the claimant’s circumstances, with the benefit of hindsight, it does not appear that the condition has resolved, the Tribunal cannot say that from the standpoint of the relevant period, that was more likely than not to be the case. It simply did not have any evidence on which to base such a finding. 30.Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that when assessed at 10 February 2026, it was more likely than not that the claimant’s condition was long term and, in those circumstances, he was not a disabled person at the relevant time and his claim must fail. 31.The case will now proceed to a one-day final hearing to determine the claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction from wages and that directions have already been issued for the preparations necessary for that hearing.