Ms C Ainsworth v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police: 6012833/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6012833/2025

Between

Ms. Claire AinsworthClaimant

The Chief Constable of South Wales PoliceRespondent

Before

Employment Judge S Evans

Ms. Afiya (instructed by Counsel) for claimant

Mr. Holdcroft (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 4 November 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of Section 6 and Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 between July 2022 and 31 January 2025.

[2]The Claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of Section 6 and Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 during any relevant period before July 2022.

[3]The matter will proceed to final hearing in accordance with the directions given on case management orders sent separately. . 1 of 13

REASONS

[1]A remote hearing was held with no technical issues reported. The purpose of the Preliminary Hearing was to determine whether the Claimant was a disabled person, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, at the material time in relation to her claim.

[2]At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed they did not require any adjustments to be made for this hearing.

[3]The bundle before the Tribunal consisted of 180 pages. I considered only those pages that I was specifically directed to read. Page references below are to pages in the bundle.

[4]Oral evidence was taken from the Claimant which included supplementary detail to add to her impact statement.

[5]Oral submissions were made by counsel for both parties and judgment was reserved.

[6]In reaching its decision, the Tribunal took account of the Claimant’s evidence, the documents which it was specifically directed to read, the closing submissions of each side, for which the Tribunal is grateful to both counsel, and the relevant law as set out below. The Issue

[7]The question for determination at this hearing is whether, at the material time, the Claimant was a disabled person. The parties agreed that, for the purpose of this hearing, the material (or relevant) time was 2019 to the end of the Claimant’s employment on 31 January 2025 (though the Respondent’s case is that there are jurisdictional issues of whether the claims are brought in time). I have used the agreed period for my deliberations

[8]The issues to be decided were : Did the claimant have a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010 when the alleged discrimination happened? In particular:(a) did she have a physical or mental impairment;

(b) did the impairment have a substantial adverse effect on her ability to do normal day-to-day activities;

(c) if not, would the impairment have had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to do normal day-to-day activities if she had not had medical treatment; and 2 of 13

(d) had the substantial adverse effect already lasted 12 months or was it likely to?

Findings of Fact

[9]I found the Claimant to be a credible witness who gave her evidence clearly. Taking account of that evidence and the documents to which I was referred, I make the following findings of fact. The references in square brackets are to the pages in the bundle produced for this hearing. The findings of fact I have made relate only to the issue of whether she meets the definition of a disabled person within the Equality Act 2010.

[10]The Claimant worked as a police officer from 14 December 2009 until 31 January 2025. She was signed off work on sick leave on 24 June 2024.

[11]From 2019, she had periods of time working in the Incident Resolution Team (IRT) and in the Crime Integrity Team (CIT).

[12]From September 2020 to 2023, the Claimant studied a full time degree as well as continuing in her full time role with the Respondent.

[13]The Claimant suffered from anxiety during the relevant period of 2019 to 31 January 2025. During this time she experienced stress, suicidal thoughts, brain fog and fuzzy brain.

[14]The Claimant’s medical records show the first references to the Claimant’s anxiety were in 2006 when, in April, there was reference to “Generalised Anxiety Disorder” [166]. At this point she had tried to commit suicide [166] and a referral was made to a psychiatrist [76] which stated: “Miss Ainsworth has a history of suicidal tendency and has taken an overdose on a few occasions to kill herself. Miss Ainsworth is also suffering from anxiety.”

[15]When the Claimant joined South Wales police, she completed a medical questionnaire dated April 2009 [79 -86]. In it she ticked box 33 to state she had or had had “Anxiety/ depression, phobias, mental breakdown or stress related problems.” This related to the period in 2006 for which the Claimant sought counselling, no medication was prescribed and the Claimant stated that there had been no recurrence. She also ticked a box at the top of the questionnaire [81] to answer “No” to the question “Do you have a disability which may affect your ability to undertake the role of police constable or which requires special arrangements?”

[16]On 29 April 2008, the GP records note “Tired all the time for past few mths” and on 17 April 2009, refer to “tiredness past week” [165]. On 2 August 2018, the notes state “tatt” which the Claimant says is a reference to “tired all the time” and the notes state “(very subjective, can work a police officer regularly)”. [164] 3 of 13

[17]The GP notes do not record any contact with the Claimant after 2 August 2018 until 30 January 2020[164]. On 23 July 2021 [163] the entry includes a referral to an endocrinologist for “unexplained hypoglycaemia. Over the past 6 – 9 months patient has noticed she was getting symptoms such as tiredness low concentration dizziness and this improved with having something to eat very shortly…”

[18]The GP notes on 25 January 2022 set out the Claimant’s experience of “anxiety issues” going back 18 months and corroborates her evidence before me as to her experiences at work, thoughts about not having children and starting a degree [163].

[19]On 19 September 2023, the GP records state that the Claimant had been having headaches “frontal and top of head” for the past few months and “has become more anxious recently”. The Claimant’s evidence, which I accept, is that this reference to headaches was to the fuzzy brain that she experienced. There is a further reference to anxiety and “fuzzy heads” on 11 October 2023 [163].

[20]On 15 October 2024, the records [162] state that the Claimant “doesn’t feel anxious”. The Claimant’s evidence, which I accept, was that this was in relation to the episodes of breathlessness which are referred to in that GP entry and not to her general mental health.

[21]The remaining GP records of February 2025 onwards [162] (after the relevant period) refer to the Claimant’s mental health, to stress and fuzzy brain and to difficulties in concentrating for more than two hours, sleepless nights and nightmares. The entry of 13 March 2025 refers to “Last summer was having thoughts of suicide and distressing nightmares, this then improved. No current or recent thoughts of suicide or self-harm.” On 21 July 2025, the final entry produced states that the Claimant is having “some sleep issues and nightmares”.

[22]During the relevant period, the Claimant was referred to occupational health on several occasions. The occupational health report of 15 November 2021 refers to the Claimant reporting anxiety, “ongoing psychological health issues” and states that the Claimant found it “difficult to get out of bed”. It also records that the Claimant did not feel that a review with her GP was needed [106] and that she did not feel that counselling was required [107]. It records that the Claimant reported that “over the past six months within this role she has been managing very well with little difficulty day to day”.

[23]The notes of the occupational health consultation of 28 February 2022 [110 - 112] and the subsequent report [116 – 117] record a mixed picture, stating that the Claimant reported difficulty in dealing with people with mental health issues due to past experiences but that “These things don’t affect her day to day”. Her concentration and memory was said to be “ok most of the time” but the report also referred to her not wanting to get up some days, feeling overwhelmed by “multiple stresses” and concluded that the Claimant would 4 of 13 benefit from counselling/ psychotherapy and that she was not “currently capable of call handling because of her psychological symptoms.” [117]

[24]A functional assessment form dated 28 February 2022 [118] states that “the Claimant was capable of dealing with work place stress with adjustments. It also stated she was capable of a role with a critical requirement for good memory, concentration and recording details and decision-making with adjustments. The adjustment suggested is “with adequate support”.[119] This was followed by completion of an adjusted duties form on 3 April 2022 [121] which records the condition of anxiety and refers to “long standing mental health issues”.

[25]There was a further occupational health referral on 19 September 2023 [127] stating the reason for referral was the Claimant stating she was suffering mind fog and anxiety, that she was struggling with receiving and retaining information and was having issues with speaking with members of the public on the telephone. [129]. No report was before the Tribunal from that referral but a further referral was made on 19 June 2024 [130] after the Claimant went off work and was declared not fit to work from 24 June 2024 to 24 August 2024 [136]. That referral on 19 June was followed in the bundle by completion of an undated health questionnaire completed by the Claimant [138] in which she stated that over the previous two weeks, she had been bothered “nearly every day” by - having little interest or pleasure in doing things - feeling tired or having little energy - trouble concentrating on things and - feeling nervous, anxious or on edge

[26]Brief notes recorded by a mental health and wellbeing support officer dated 27 September 2024 [140] referred to the Claimant describing feelings of jealousy after her uncle committed suicide and stating that she was in contact with her GP “Not in relation to thoughts- in relation to physical”. There was a further referral on 7 October 2024 [141] but I was not referred to any further outcomes or reports.

[27]The Claimant experienced incidents of brain fog from 2018 and it was referred to in the referral of 19 September 2023 [129]. She believes the brain fog is linked to her anxiety. She described the fuzzy brain as a different symptom which she first experienced in June/July 2023 and raised with her GP on 19 September 2023. She had a CT scan in October 2023 which did not disclose any issues. The Claimant says the fuzzy brain lasted till March 2025.

[28]The Claimant was unable to say whether her suicidal thoughts were a manifestation of stress or anxiety and said it was more likely to be depression. She accepted she had no diagnosis of depression in the relevant period. She also agreed that her difficulties were exacerbated by the various distressing life events she experienced in the relevant period but says her anxiety was always in the background. 5 of 13

[29]The Claimant occasionally struggled to get out of bed and suffered nightmares when she was off work sick, from June 2024 onwards. She experienced a decline in function at work as she was unable to process information and sometimes experienced a freeze response staring into space whilst on her laptop so that she only completed three to six tasks in 12 hour shift rather than 15-20 tasks she would complete when she joined. She had instances between July 2022 and early 2025 where she struggled to make decisions such as deciding what food to buy and what to cook.

The Law

[30]The relevant provisions of the legislation relating to the question of whether someone meets the definition of disabled person are found at section 6 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”) : 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.

[31]There is no definition of physical or mental impairment in EqA 2010. The term bears its ordinary and natural meaning and it will be for the Tribunal in each case to make a decision whether the evidence available establishes that the Claimant has such an impairment.

[32]Under s.212 (1) EqA 2010, “substantial” is defined as meaning “more than minor or trivial”. An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal dayto-day activities if measures are being taken to treat or correct it and, but for that, it would be likely to have that effect (paragraph 5, schedule 1, EqA 2010).

[33]Schedule 1 Part 1 EqA 2010, paragraph (2), 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.

[34]“Likely” means “could well happen” and the time at which to assess whether there is an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on normal dayto-day activities is the date of the alleged discriminatory act which is also the material, or relevant, time when determining whether the impairment has or is likely to have a long-term effect.

[35]As established in Goodwin v Patent Office

[1999] IRLR 4

, in cases where disability status is disputed, there are four essential questions which a Tribunal should consider. These are: 6 of 13 1. Does the person have a physical or mental impairment? 2. Does that impairment have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities? 3. Is that effect substantial? 4. Is that effect long-term?

[36]Counsel for the Respondent, in his closing submissions, stated that these four questions should be considered sequentially and not together. He also referred me to the case of “DLA Piper” which I took to mean the case of J v DLA Piper

[2010] IRLR 936

. From that case, I have reminded myself that the correct approach is as follows: “(1) It remains good practice in every case for a tribunal to state conclusions separately on the questions of impairment and of adverse effect (and, in the case of adverse effect, the questions of substantiality and long-term effect arising under it) as recommended in Goodwin . (2) However, in reaching those conclusions the tribunal should not proceed by rigid consecutive stages. Specifically, in cases where there may be a dispute about the existence of an impairment it will make sense… to start by making findings about whether the claimant's ability to carry out normal dayto-day activities is adversely affected (on a long-term basis), and to consider the question of impairment in the light of those findings.”

[37]Mr. Holdcroft’s reference to the “DLA Piper case” was made in the context of submitting that, in the current case, the Claimant’s symptoms were reactions to life events. I have taken it therefore that he was referring to paragraph 42 of the decision of Underhill P. in J v DLA Piper: “… The first state of affairs is a mental illness – or, if you prefer, a mental condition – which is conveniently referred to as “clinical depression” and is unquestionably an impairment within the meaning of the Act. The second is not characterised as a mental condition at all but simply as a reaction to adverse circumstances (such as problems at work) or – if the jargon may be forgiven – “adverse life events…we would not expect those difficulties often to cause a real problem in the context of a claim under the Act. This is because of the long-term effect requirement. If, as we recommend at para. 40 (2) above, a tribunal starts by considering the adverse effect issue and finds that the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities has been substantially impaired by symptoms characteristic of depression for twelve months or more, it would in most cases be likely to conclude that he or she was indeed suffering “clinical depression” rather than simply a reaction to adverse circumstances: it is a common-sense observation that such reactions are not normally long-lived.”

[38]In her closing submissions, Ms. Afiya referred me to the case of Elliott v Dorset Council which I took to be a reference to Elliott v Dorset County 7 of 13 Council

UKEAT/0197/20/LA

where Tayler J. held that if the statutory definition of “substantial” under s.212 EqA 2010 is met, on a consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, that takes precedence over the Guidance and Code, including the reference to the “general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people”. The tribunal has to consider whether the Claimant is affected to a more than minor or trivial extent in carrying out day-to-day activities (which may include work activities) as a result of the impairment in comparison to what the situation would be if the Claimant did not have the impairment.

[39]In addition to the legislative and common law authorities above, I have taken into account the ‘Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability’ (“the Guidance”). This does not itself impose legal obligations and it is not an authoritative statement of the law but Schedule 1, Paragraph 12 EqA 2010 requires that the Tribunal must take into account any aspect of this guidance which appears to it to be relevant when determining whether a person is a disabled person under EqA 2010 and I have done so in reaching my decision.

[40]The Guidance at paragraph A8 states ‘It is not necessary to consider how an impairment is caused… What is important to consider is the effect of an impairment, not its cause.’

[41]The Guidance at paragraph B1 deals with the meaning of ‘substantial adverse effect’ and provides: “The requirement that an adverse effect on normal dayto-day activities should be a substantial one reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people. A substantial effect is one that is more than a minor or trivial effect.”

[42]Paragraphs B4 and B5 of the Guidance provide that: “An impairment might not have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to undertake a particular day-to-day activity in isolation. However, it is important to consider whether its effect on more than one activity, when taken together, could result in an overall substantial adverse effect. For example, a person whose impairment causes breathing difficulties may, as a result, experience minor effects on the ability to carry out a number of day-today activities such as getting washed and dressed, going for a walk, or travelling on public transport. But taken together, the cumulative result would amount to a substantial adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out these normal dayto- day activities.”

[43]Paragraph B1 of the Guidance should be read in conjunction with Section D of the Guidance, which considers what is meant by ‘normal day-to-day activities’. Paragraph D2 states that it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of day-today activities. Paragraph D3 provides that: “In general, day-to-day activities are things that people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading 8 of 13 and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities. Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities, and study and education related activities, such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents, and keeping to a timetable or a shift pattern.”

[44]Neither party referred me to the Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice on Employment (2011) at Appendix 1 which sets out further guidance on the meaning of disability. It states at paragraph 7 that: “There is no need for a person to establish a medically diagnosed cause for their impairment. What is important to consider is the effect of the impairment, not the cause.”

[45]At paragraph 16 it states: “Someone with impairment may be receiving medical or other treatment which. alleviates or removes the effects (although not the impairment). In such cases, the treatment is ignored and the impairment is taken to have the effect it would have had without such treatment. This does not apply if the substantial adverse effects are not likely to occur even if the treatment stops (that is, the impairment has been cured).”

[46]I have taken into consideration the law set out above, reminding myself of the relevant legal principles, including that the focus must be on what the Claimant is unable to do, rather than what she can do. I am mindful that the burden lies with the Claimant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was a disabled person, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, at the material time and that the issue for determination at this hearing is a legal and not a medical one.

Conclusions

[47]The Claimant had the mental impairment of anxiety throughout the relevant period. At various points in the relevant period, she experienced periods of tiredness, feelings of stress, brain fog and fuzzy brain. There was no medical evidence to show that these experiences were the result of the Claimant’s anxiety. The Claimant believes they are but, as she said in evidence, she does not have a medical basis for reaching that conclusion. I have reminded myself of the direction in J v DLA Piper above that in cases where there may be a dispute about the existence of an impairment it will make sense… to start by making findings about whether the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities is adversely affected (on a long-term basis), and to consider the question of impairment in the light of those findings. The Respondent disputes that the Claimant had an impairment and says she experienced reactions to life events.

[48]I have reminded myself that the term “physical or mental impairment” bears its ordinary and natural meaning and it will be for the Tribunal in each case to make a decision whether the evidence available establishes that the Claimant 9 of 13 has such an impairment. I am also reminded that the important consideration is not how an impairment is caused but the effect of an impairment. Even if an impairment might not have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to undertake a particular day-to-day activity in isolation, the effect on more than one activity, when taken together, could result in an overall substantial adverse effect.

[49]The Claimant says her impairment caused the following effects : Extreme fatigue mainly in later 2023 through to at least June 2024. I find no evidence of this degree of fatigue at the time relied on by the Claimant. The references in the medical notes to tiredness are mainly before the relevant period (2008, 2009 and 2018). The only reference to tiredness in the relevant period is in 2021 in the referral to an endocrinologist. The referral does not relate the tiredness to anxiety or any other mental health issue but, instead, to “unexplained hypoglycaemia” which improved when the Claimant had something to eat. In June 2024, when she completed the questionnaire, the Claimant reported feeling tired or having little energy but there is no evidence to show the reason for this tiredness and lack of energy. Lack of motivation and struggling to get out of bed which happens daily during an episode. The Claimant’s evidence was limited as to the periods in which this lack of motivation occurred and how it manifested itself. She said she occasionally struggled to get out of bed and the occupational health reports of November 2021 and February 2022 both refer to the Claimant reporting this difficulty but also indicating that she did not consider a review with her GP nor counselling was required and that she was experiencing little difficulty day to day. The report of February 2022 recommends counselling or psychotherapy but there is no clear indication of the reason for this beyond “her psychological symptoms.” I find that, although I accept the Claimant’s evidence that she did, from time to time, struggle to get out of bed, there is no evidence to show that this was linked to an impairment. Even if it was so linked, there is no evidence that it had a substantial, or indeed any, effect on her ability to carry out normal day to day activities. In reaching this decision, I also take note of the fact that, during the periods reported in the occupational health reports, the Claimant was studying a full-time degree, which she successfully completed, as well as attending full-time work. Fuzzy brain The Claimant’s evidence is that the fuzzy brain was a symptom of her anxiety which began in June 2023. There is no independent evidence to explain the cause of the fuzzy brain. The Claimant had a CT scan in October 2023 but I was not directed to any evidence showing the fuzzy brain was linked to the Claimant’s anxiety. The GP notes of 19 September 2023 and 11 October 2023 mention the headaches/fuzzy head and also refer to anxiety but there is 10 of 13 no evidence to suggest they were linked, simply reported in the same consultation. If the fuzzy brain was due to the Claimant’s anxiety or if it was an impairment in itself, there was insufficient evidence to show that it had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. The Claimant’s evidence was that the fuzzy brain was a physical sensation which made the Claimant feel drowsy. She says it was often triggered by noise and the constant processing of information such as looking at a screen. I considered whether these triggers amounted to a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day activities such as being in a noisy room or using screens (although this was not expressly presented to me as an argument). I do not find that there is evidence to show the fuzzy brain had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. Her evidence was that the fuzzy brain was at its worst in June/July 2023 when she was still able to work full-time and conclude her degree and there is insufficient evidence that it had any substantial adverse effect on her. Nightmares when off sick – June 2024 onwards and happen every few weeks The Claimant gave evidence that she suffered nightmares from June 2024 but accepted that it is first noted in her medical records in February 2025. I accept her evidence that they began in or about June 2024. This is supported by the GP note of 13 March 2025 stating “Last summer was having thoughts of suicide and distressing nightmares, this then improved.” However, there is insufficient evidence to show the reason for these nightmares and, even if they were linked to anxiety, there is no evidence to show they had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-today activities. Suicidal thoughts There was little mention of these within the submissions and I was not referred to any evidence to show these thoughts had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities within the relevant period. The evidence showed a reference on 13 March 2025 to the Claimant having thoughts of suicide and distressing nightmares “last summer” and stated “this then improved. No current or recent thoughts of suicide or self-harm.” I find that there was no adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities and, if I am wrong on that, there is no evidence to show that any effect was long term. Inability to process information and experiencing a freeze response Due to brain fog, the Claimant’s work was affected so that she would stare into space whilst on her laptop at work and only completed three to six tasks in a 12 hour shift rather than the 15-20 tasks she would complete when she joined the police because she needed to double-check the same information repeatedly. She also struggled between July 2022 and early 2025 to make 11 of 13 simple decisions such as deciding what food to buy and what to cook. I find that these effects do amount to a more than minor or trivial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out day to day activities of reading and processing information on screen and of shopping and preparing food and were therefore substantial adverse effects. I do not accept the Respondent’s submission that these effects were merely a reaction to life events and find that the brain fog was a mental impairment that caused these effects. The brain fog began in 2018. The Claimant was very clear in her evidence that brain fog and fuzzy brain were two separate symptoms. There is no reference in the medical notes provided to brain fog. There is a reference to low concentration in 2021 in the referral to an endocrinologist but, as with the tiredness referred to above, the description of low concentration is provided in the context of “unexplained hypoglycaemia” which improved when the Claimant had something to eat. There is also a reference in February 2025 to difficulties in concentrating for more than two hours. The occupational health report of 28 February 2022 stated that the Claimant’s concentration and memory was said to be “ok most of the time” and the functional assessment form dated 28 February 2022 stated she was capable of a role with a critical requirement for good memory, concentration and recording details and decision-making with adequate support. There is no evidence to this point of brain fog having an adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. A further occupational health referral on 19 September 2023 referred to the Claimant stating she was suffering mind fog and anxiety and in the undated health questionnaire completed by the Claimant, seemingly in or after June 2024, she answered that over the previous two weeks, she had been bothered “nearly every day” by trouble concentrating on things. I find that the substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out the normal day to day activities began in July 2022 when she experienced difficulty in deciding what to shop for and eat and continued until March 2025 when she felt more able to shop and cook. I am satisfied therefore that the effect was long term as within the relevant period the effects had lasted at least 12 months.

[50]I find that the Claimant met the definition of a disabled person within the Equality Act 2010, for such of the material time as falls between July 2022 and March 2025, for the reasons stated above. 12 of 13 S. Evans