Ms L McGowan v British Broadcasting Corporation: 4102766/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 4102766/2025

Between

Ms Laura McGowanClaimant

British Broadcasting CorporationRespondent

Before

Employment Judge McFatridge

Mr D Milne (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 23 January 2026

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant was not a disabled person in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act at the relevant time. The claims of disability discrimination are therefore dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The claimant submitted a claim to the tribunal on 26 July 2025 following the ending of her employment with the respondent. The claimant made claims of discrimination on the grounds of age, disability and sex as well as constructive unfair dismissal and automatic constructive unfair dismissal. She also claimed breach of contract. The respondent submitted a response in which they denied the claims. It was their position that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. A preliminary hearing took place on 17 October 2025 for case management purposes following which various orders were made in relation to the claim including an order that unless the parties were in a position to agree the question of the claimant’s disability status, a further preliminary hearing would take place on 19 December 2025 in order to determine this. Amongst other orders, the claimant was ordered to provide a disability impact statement and copies of any medical records on which she sought to rely. She duly produced this to the tribunal and it was copied to the respondents. On 28 November 2025, the respondent’s representative confirmed to the tribunal that it was still their position that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time and that the preliminary hearing should proceed as planned on 19 December 2025.

[2]At the hearing, the claimant gave evidence on her own behalf. Both parties then made full submissions. On the basis of the claimant’s evidence and the documentary productions, I found the following facts relevant to the issue of disability to be proved or agreed. Findings in fact

[3]The claimant considers that she suffers from low mental health and anxiety. This first manifested in or about 2014 and 2016. The claimant suffered a significant bereavement in 2014 and in 2016, she sought medical assistance. The claimant was prescribed propranalol by her GP and the prescription continued from around 2017 until around 2020 with the claimant being told to take this as and when she felt she needed it. At some point over this period, the claimant also attended counselling. The first counselling she attended was arranged by the hospice which had treated her relative before their death and was bereavement counselling. The second type of counselling was CBT counselling which comprised a course known as “beating the blues”.

[4]Since 2020, the claimant has not taken medication but has used various self help strategies which she was taught in counselling in order to manage her mood. The claimant finds that going to the gym helps her considerably and she goes to the gym several times a week.

[5]Sometimes she feels that she is exhausted and she sometimes does not sleep well. When this happens, she has an inability to concentrate and she feels she has a lack of motivation and energy and low self esteem. Generally, she deals with this by seeking the help of her friends and family and by going to the gym. She considers these to be coping strategies. She finds that physical fitness is very important to her and she uses these techniques to focus and sleep better. Generally speaking, the claimant coped well.

[6]She suffered a bereavement in or about November 2023 which knocked her off for a bit but her mental health did not cause any serious difficulties until she started having problems with her employer. She consulted her GP after her employment ended in February 2025. In order to deal with her perceived lack of ability to concentrate, the claimant writes things down. It is the claimant’s position that the BBC triggered a relapse in her condition. She is not currently on medication but still uses the coping strategies mentioned above.

[7]In preparation for the tribunal, the claimant sought a letter from her GP. This letter was dated 13 November 2025 and was lodged. It is as well to set it out in full: “To whom it may concern I have been asked by this patient to provide evidence of this patient’s pasty history with regards to her mental health and well-being. She has been at patient at this practice since birth. She has presented to the surgery on several occasions since 2016 with variable problems relating to stress, anxiety and low mood, mainly in reaction to adverse life events (bereavement, stress at work, stress relating to legal proceedings). She has at times required medication to aid her symptoms (Propranolol as required 2017 to 2020). She signed up for an on-line Cognitive Bheavioural Therapy course for anxiety and low mood in 2016 (Beating The Blues)”. Matters arising from the evidence In the agenda for the previous preliminary hearing in October and in the discussion at that preliminary hearing, the claimant stated that the disability she was relying on was work related stress and a learning disability. She confirmed during the course of the hearing in December that in fact what she was relying on was low mental health and anxiety. Generally speaking, the claimant was extremely short on detail as to how this disability impacted her ability to carry out day to day activities. She spoke of suffering symptoms of low mood such as interrupted sleep patterns and said that she had an inability to concentrate and that she felt isolated in social situations. She said that she had coping mechanisms which helped with this which the main one seemed to be speaking to her friends and family and going to the gym. I considered that her evidence was credible and reliable so far as it went and that the claimant was genuinely describing how she felt about things.

Issues

[8]The sole issue which I was required to determine was whether or not the claimant was disabled at the relevant time for her claim. McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College

2008 ICR 431

. At the outset of the hearing, the respondent’s representative suggested that the relevant period was the period from October 2023 until 26 February 2025. This was on the basis that the claimant had mentioned events during this period although it was the respondent’s position that many of the events were time barred in any event. The claimant agreed that so far as she was concerned, this was the relevant period during which she alleged that discrimination had taken place.

[9]Both parties made full submissions. In order to assist the claimant, I arranged for the respondent’s representative to give his submission first. The respondent’s submissions

[10]The respondent’s representative confirmed the tribunal required to look at the position from October 2023 which was the date the claimant moved from one team to another within the BBC. The period ended on 26 February 2025 which was the date her employment ended. He set out in general terms the law on the subject. The definition of disability is contained within section 6 of the Equality Act and schedules 1 and 5 are relevant. The claimant is required to establish that she was disabled during the period when she claims that she was discriminated against. It was his position that in this case, the evidence suggested that the claimant did not meet the tests set out in section 6 and that in particular, she had not established a long-term substantial adverse effect. He dealt briefly with the issue of medical treatment, in particular paragraph 5 of schedule 1 of the act. This states: “(1) An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if—(a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and

(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect. (2) “Measures” includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid.”

[11]She also referred to paragraph 2 of the schedule which states:(1) The effect of an impairment is long-term if— (a) it has lasted for at least 12 months, (b) it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or (c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

(2) If an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.”

[12]He referred to the case of Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth

2000 IRLR 699

which clarified what is meant by paragraph 5. He also referred to an ET case Hubert v OneCall 24 (ET case 22023208/2020) which although not binding on this tribunal provided helpful background to the issue of whether or not self help could be treated as “measures being taken to treat or correct it”. It was the respondent’s position that the fact the claimant in this case goes to the gym regularly and speaks to family and friends did not amount to measures within paragraph 5. The respondent’s representative referred to the well known case of J v DLA Piper UK LLP

[2010] ICR 1052

. He referred to the analysis in that case of the way a tribunal should approach a situation where impairment was in dispute by looking at the adverse effects first. He referred in particular to the analysis in paragraph 45 and the various ways that mental health issues could be manifested. It was his view that the claimant’s position was halfway between the two points mentioned in that paragraph.

[13]The main issue however was that if a tribunal was seeking to establish whether this was a case of someone with a long term condition which recured or simply someone who had a reaction to adverse life events then clear medical evidence would usually be required. It was the respondent’s position that there was no medical evidence in this case of the claimant suffering from a single medical condition as opposed to the claimant having reacted at various times to adverse life events. The two specific events which she reacted to were her bereavement in or about 2014 and the various employment difficulties which she had with the respondent which led to her resigning in February 2026. He noted that the claimant had previously referred to having a learning disability but there was absolutely no evidence of this provided at the hearing nor was it mentioned in her medical impact statement or in her medical evidence. It was the respondent’s position that there were three reasons why the claimant would not be regarded as disabled at the relevant time.

[14]The first was that she had not met the extremely low threshold. The medical evidence was extremely limited and militates against any finding she suffered from a long-term impairment. With regard to medication, she had stopped taking this in 2020. Since then, she has reacted to various discrete life events that caused her stress and found coping mechanisms to deal with these. There was nothing to suggest that any impairment lasted 12 months or was likely to last 12 months or was likely to recur. The evidence strongly suggested that the claimant was well in between the various episodes she mentioned.

[15]Secondly, he pointed out that the claimant’s evidence about substantial effect was extremely limited. She mentioned sometimes being reclusive in social situations and that her sleep was affected. There was absolutely no detail regarding this.

[16]The third point is that although the claimant mentioned stress on various occasions, it is well known that stress per se is not a disability. The claimant’s submission

[17]The claimant’s submission was brief. She considered that she had learnt to live with low mental health. She believed that self help was a treatment for coping with this and it was good to prevent using medication. She was taking medication as required and she complained that the BBC had not carried out any occupational health assessment and that her previous line manager had been worried about her moving to a new team without any kind of risk assessment mentor. She said that, earlier on, it had really helped her in her career to have a mentor. She felt that she had to fend for herself at the BBC. She felt that if she had the same reasonable adjustments as in her previous team then she would not have had her difficulties. Discussion and decision

[18]In a disability discrimination case, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they were disabled at the relevant time. In this case, I considered that the claimant had entirely failed to meet that burden. As pointed out by the respondent, the evidence given as to the effect of any impairment on her ability to carry out day to day activities was extremely limited and absolutely no detail was given. The claimant’s evidence, her impact statement and indeed the short letter from her GP all suggested that the claimant had suffered various symptoms in the past as a reaction to adverse life events. The evidence was that the claimant had coped with these and that she had moved on. I was aware of the discussion regarding this type of case which is contained in the case of J v DLA Piper and many of the issues in that case also arose here. The medical evidence which I was provided with was extremely slight. There was absolutely no suggestion of any long-term underlying condition. I therefore felt that the claimant did not fall into any of the categories contained in paragraph 2 of schedule 1. I agreed with the respondent’s representatives that paragraph 5 was of no assistance to her since what she did was essentially self-intervention. As in the Hubert case, I fully accept that CBT or counselling or the like can amount to medical treatment for the purposes of paragraph 5 but this is distinguished from self treatment such as what was going on here.

[19]Although the threshold contained in section 6 is a fairly low one, there is a requirement for there to be a long-term condition and the evidence in this case simply did not support that conclusion. The evidence of the claimant and the medical evidence was that over the years, she had suffered on occasions from an adverse reaction to certain life circumstances. A bereavement and breakdown in work relationships is going to cause some mental distress to everyone. There was absolutely no medical or other evidence before me to suggest that the claimant was, in any particular, in a different situation in relation to this. My decision therefore is that at the relevant time, the claimant was not disabled in terms of the legislation. Her claim of disability discrimination must therefore be dismissed.