As a result of depression and anxiety, the Claimant met the definition of a disabled person at the time of the alleged discrimination on 4 July 2023.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant alleges that the Respondent discriminated against her on 4 July 2023 because of something arising in consequence of her disability. She says she was a disabled person at that time as a result of depression, anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).[2]The Preliminary Hearing was held to decide whether she met the definition of a disabled person at the relevant time. A person is disabled if she has a mental impairment that has had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities for 12 months or more (Section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 – the EqA). An effect is “substantial” if it is more than minor or trivial (Section 212(1) EqA). In assessing whether an impairment has a substantial adverse effect the Tribunal must discount any reduction in the effect that has resulted from the person taking medication or receiving counselling. In deciding whether someone meets the definition of a disabled person, the Tribunal must take into account the “Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability”.[3]At the Preliminary Hearing, the Claimant gave oral evidence and submitted medical evidence in the form of GP records. The Tribunal also took into account a statement from her husband, although it gave this less weight than it would have done had he attended to give evidence, since what he said had not been tested through crossexamination by the Respondent.[4]On the basis of that evidence, the Tribunal has reached the following conclusions.[5]Although the Claimant alleges that she has ADHD, she had not been medically diagnosed with that condition at the time of the Preliminary Hearing. The Tribunal is not in a position to make a finding that she has ADHD. It is able, however, to make an overall assessment of how the Claimant’s mental state has affected her day-to-day activities, taking into account that the effects of depression and anxiety are inter-related.[6]The Tribunal accepts the Claimant’s evidence that she has experienced episodes of anxiety and depression of varying degrees of severity since her teenage years, which began in 2000. Her medical records confirm that in March 2010 her GP referred her for counselling for a “depressive disorder” which appears to have resolved by August 2010. In 2013 she was prescribed with a 7-day course of Zopiclone to help her with difficulties in sleeping due to an episode of severe anxiety recorded in the medical records as an “acute stress reaction”. In October 2014 she reported to her GP that she was feeling anxious after a domestic incident. In March 2017 she was prescribed a 28-day course of Fluoxetine for “low mood” but she felt unwell with this and stopped taking it after two days. In 2020 she had a significant episode of depression during lockdown but from her medical records it does not appear that she contacted her GP about this.[7]The Tribunal accepts the Claimant’s evidence that in March 2022 she began an episode of depression and anxiety that was more severe than previous episodes and continued to the date of the alleged discrimination and beyond. The Claimant’s evidence is supported by her husband’s statement that, whilst the Claimant has had episodes of anxiety and depression for the 16 years he has known her, she began an episode in March 2022 that led to her suffering worse than he had ever seen her before. Her low mood was making her feel pessimistic about everything, triggering her to worry and become anxious and overthink everything and anything. She was finding it increasingly difficult to get to sleep. She took at least two hours to fall asleep and was sleeping for around six hours a night, which was two to three hours less than usual. She struggled to get out of bed for work most mornings due to her low mood and exhaustion. She relied on her husband for support. He helped her to get up and get ready for work. She needed her husband’s encouragement to eat, drink, wash or brush her hair. She stopped feeling pleasure in meeting friends and avoided making plans or cancelled plans at the last minute. She felt that her low mood was slowly taking over her life.[8]Although the Claimant was still attending work, she struggled to complete the physical tasks involved in her job. She works as a project support officer, supporting children who have been excluded or expelled from mainstream schools. In the mornings she was involved in written work with them but the afternoons were spent in practical activities, including sport, dance and cooking. It was these activities that she found difficult, because she was exhausted due to lack of sleep. She became irritable and upset over small issues and struggled to concentrate. She was not able to remain focused when having conversations with colleagues. She also took longer to mark student work because she could not concentrate. All of this had a negative effect on her relationships with her colleagues.[9]By September 2022 the Claimant’s negative thoughts had become overwhelming. She felt constantly restless and on edge, was worrying uncontrollably and fearing the worst would happen in every situation. She was now sleeping only around five hours a night. She fell asleep soon after getting in from work and slept until after lunchtime at weekends due to exhaustion. She had the stress of caring for her grandmother who had dementia and did not recognise her. On 20 September 2022 the Claimant broke down at work. She cried uncontrollably and said inappropriate things about her personal life. She saw her GP on that day who issued a fit note stating that she was unfit to attend work for a week due to “stress”. Although the medical records state that she told her GP that she did not think she had depression, during that week off work she stayed in bed for most of the time and slept.[10]Although the Claimant returned to work after her breakdown, she found herself becoming suddenly emotional, tearful, irritable or angry, resulting in emotional outbursts and negative or inappropriate comments. This had a negative effect on her relationships at work and with her family and friends. Her husband took over cooking meals and other household chores such as shopping, laundry and cleaning that she no longer had the energy to do. By the beginning of 2023, the Claimant was avoiding social situations altogether and was reluctant to leave the house unless she had someone with her.[11]After her breakdown at work, the Claimant decided to take her husband’s advice and refer herself for counselling. She attended sessions in October and November 2022 and January 2023 but then stopped going. The sessions were upsetting and she could not concentrate in advance of them, so she felt she needed the full day off work on the day of a session. The Respondent would allow her to start work late or leave early to go to a session but did not have sufficient staffing cover to allow her full days off.[12]In February 2023 the Claimant’s grandmother died and this bereavement increased her difficulties in sleeping. By now she was sleeping for only four hours a night.[13]On 26 April 2023 the Claimant saw her GP and reported that she was suffering mental health issues, was anxious and irritable and behaving compulsively. Her GP referred her for a psychiatric assessment. At a consultation with her GP in June 2023 about an xray she had had for back pain, the GP’s notes describe her as a “very anxious lady, pacing”.[14]On 10 July 2013, after the conversation that is the subject of her claim to the Tribunal, the Claimant visited her GP. She said she felt stressed and anxious because of the conversation and the GP signed her off as unfit for work for two weeks due to “anxiety and work related stress”. On examination, he concluded that the Claimant was not depressed. She did not want to try any medication. The Tribunal accepts the Claimant’s evidence that it was her anxiety that was overshadowing everything by this time, including her depression. She did not want to take medication because her mother is addicted to prescription medication. On her husband’s insistence, she has since started taking medication for her anxiety.[15]Taking all of this into account, the Tribunal concludes that the Claimant had a mental impairment that began to have a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities in March 2022. At that point, she began an episode of depression and anxiety that had a more than minor or trivial effect on her ability to sleep, to take care of herself and to interact with her work colleagues, friends and family. The exhaustion that resulted from her lack of sleep had more than a minor or trivial effect on her ability to carry out the physical aspects of her job. All these effects became more severe over time, eventually meaning that her husband had to take over responsibility for most household chores and she could no longer sustain a social life.[16]The Respondent points out that there was no mention in the Claimant’s medical records of depression from 2017 (when there was a record of “low mood”) to the date of the alleged discrimination in July 2023. The Tribunal nevertheless considers the Claimant’s evidence of her experience of depression in that period to be credible. After her breakdown at work in September 2022, she felt the need to refer herself for counselling. She did not seek medication for her condition until after the interview that is the subject of her claim, but the Tribunal accepts that that was because she was reluctant to take medication in the light of her mother’s experience of addiction. The Respondent also points out that, other than the week after she broke down in September 2022, the Claimant did not have time off work because of her mental ill-health. The Tribunal nevertheless accepts that she was struggling to carry out the physical aspects of her work and taking longer to carry out paperwork than she normally would.[17]As the substantial adverse effect of the Claimant’s depression and anxiety had lasted for over 12 months by the date of the discrimination in July 2023, the Tribunal concludes that the Claimant met the definition of a disabled person at that time.