Miss A Beddis v Petrie Tucker and Partners Ltd T/a My Dentist: 6023275/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6023275/2024
Between
Miss A BeddisClaimantPetrie Tucker and Partners Ltd T/a My DentistRespondent
Before
Employment Judge G DuncanIn person for claimantMiss Taylor (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 8 October 2025
JUDGMENT
It is the decision of
REASONS
[1]The Claimant, Miss A Beddis, was employed as a dental nurse from 31 January 2024 to 2 December 2024. The ET1 received on 27 December 2024 alleges that she was subject to disability discrimination and that she has severe anxiety. The specific act or incident that is relied upon relates to the 1 October 2024 at a return-to-work meeting with her manager.[2]The ET3 attaches a Grounds of Resistance and disputes the claim. The ET3 requests further and better particulars, denies disability and denies knowledge of any disability.[3]The matter was listed for consideration on 8 April 2025 before EJ Povey. It was not disputed that the Claimant was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct. At that time, the Claimant confirmed that she relied upon IBS and anxiety for the purpose of her disability claim. The case management order reflects that the Claimant was pursuing claims for direct disability discrimination, breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and harassment by reason of disability.[4]The matter comes before the Tribunal today for a preliminary hearing to consider disability only.[5]I have had the benefit of a bundle running to 136 pages including the ET1, ET3, Claimant’s medical evidence, the response by the Respondent, a statement dated 12 March 2025 and response by email to the Respondent’s position dated 2 June 2025.
Legal Principles
[6]Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 states: (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…[7]Section 212 Equality Act 2010 defines “substantial” as being more than minor or trivial.[8]Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010:(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 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.[9]Para. 12 of Schedule 1 of the EA 2010 provides that when determining whether a person is disabled, the Tribunal “must take account of such guidance as it thinks is relevant.” The “Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability” (May 2011) (the “Guidance”) was issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to s. 6(5) of the EA 2010.[10]In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] I.C.R. 302, Morison J (President), provided some guidance on the proper approach for the Tribunal to adopt when applying the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Morison J set out four questions to be answered by the Tribunal in order. This four-stage approach was approved more recently by the Court of Appeal in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694, where Singh LJ listed the questions as: a) Was there an impairment? (the ‘impairment condition’); b) What were its adverse effects [on normal day-to-day activities]? (the ‘adverse effect condition’); c) Were they more than minor or trivial? (the ‘substantial condition’); d) Was there a real possibility that they would continue for more than 12 months? (the ‘long-term condition’).[11]Singh LJ emphasised that these are questions for the Tribunal; although it may be assisted by medical evidence, it is not bound by any opinion expressed.[12]The relevant point in time to be looked at by the Tribunal when evaluating whether the claimant is disabled under s. 6 is not the date of the hearing, but the time of the alleged discriminatory act: Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd [2002] I.C.R. 729. Evidence and Findings[13]As above, the Claimant states that she had IBS and anxiety at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts in October 2024.[14]I heard focused evidence from the Claimant and she confirmed the truth of the documents prepared before today. She was subject to cross-examination.[15]It was agreed that the Claimant had an impairment with an IBS diagnosis in 2022 and anxiety starting in 2018. This is supported by the medical evidence.[16]It was accepted that her symptoms come and go depending on life events. It was acknowledged that the Claimant’s documents have limited focus on the impact of her impairment on day-to-day activities – this despite the Claimant filing a document following the Respondent confirming their position on disability.[17]That absence of evidence sits alongside a number of concessions made by the Claimant: she can eat certain foods to avoid flare ups; can use public transport but on occasions needs to be supported; her sleep difficulties relate to her bed and partner at the time; there is no evidence of sleep induced insomnia as this appears to come later after 1 October 2024; and, she is able to attend work and perform duties as required.[18]The focus of her oral evidence was on events that follow the incident in October. She informed me that she was not working and is undergoing investigation. I have no medical evidence to support this.[19]She accepted that she was able to get washed and dressed, walk up and down stairs and use a computer. She accepted that she could follow instructions.[20]I have been referred the medical records in some detail as follows: Page 99 - intermittent references to IBS 9/9/2022, 26/1/22, abdominal pain 25/3/2019, close proximity to period disorders on 21/1/2019, anxiety with depression on 21/9/2018. Medication for iron deficiency and Meberine for treatment of muscle spasm that may relate to IBS. There are various attendances for medical treatment Page 100 – attended endoscopy for history of chronic diarrhoea associated with nausea and weight loss – May 2023 Page 102 – referral for gastroenterology for colonoscopy Page 103 – medication for IBS – buscopan – 34 days, senna for constipation – July 2023 Page 104 - referral letter at 23/1/2023 – chronic diarrhoea and abdominal pain – subjective weight loss, impact on psychological state Page 105 – colonoscopy report – Feb 2023 – episodes of vomiting and diarrhoea Page 108 – dates cut off but it appears to relate to 2023 – pain on and off for years, pain and diarrhoea for two weeks – went to A and E but did not wait for consultation Page 109 – Jan 2023 – seems to confirm that she had issues with pain earlier in 2023, unable to tolerate bowel prep for colonscopy Page 110 – July 2023 - having to call in sick a number of times per month Page 111 – 25 July 2023 – mental health deterioration at the time, making her feel suicidal and tearful during the appointment[21]In summary, the medical evidence demonstrates, in my judgment, that there were various investigations in 2023 including a colonoscopy report and reference to endoscopy – the entries appear to state that there is a history of chronic diarrhoea and intermittent references to abdominal pain. It also appears that during 2023 there was a need for medication in an attempt to assist with symptoms.[22]The evidence has a particular focus on events in 2023, whilst there are references to there being chronic conditions, this does not appear to be supported by the medical evidence. In addition, the medical records do not assist with the impact on the Claimant’s day to day activities – they are remarkably quiet on this issue and make only passing reference to a number of days off work in July 2023, for example. In July, it appears that the physical symptoms were impacting upon the Claimant’s mental wellbeing given the reports to mental health deterioration and feeling suicidal and tearful during the appointment.[23]The overall impression is that there are occasions where the symptoms worsen but improve following a short period. The difficulty for the Claimant is that the Tribunal needs to consider the position at the time of the alleged act on 1 October 2024. For that there is an absence of medical evidence and the focus, as already identified, is upon 2023.[24]There is an absence of evidence to explain to me the impact of any impairment. Even following the oral evidence of the Claimant, it was hard to establish a picture of how she was actually impacted. The concessions are important as she was able to complete multiple tasks and whilst there were some issues that demonstrate restriction, for example, on public transport, the overall impact is limited.[25]I consider and accept that the Claimant was in hospital it seems for a short period before the incident but I have no medical evidence to properly explain the nature of the admission. Regardless, she was able to attend work shortly after.[26]I have regard to OH report but this appears to be a telephone consultation and it is unclear if the medical records have been considered. There is limited information in that document relating to the nature of any impact on day-to-day activities. The report also states that she was able to return to work to perform normal duties.[27]When viewed in totality, I am not satisfied that the Claimant’s impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day to day activities.[28]I specifically consider the guidance and it appears that the Claimant is able to complete many if not all day-to-day tasks without restriction.[29]Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Claimant is disabled for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010.