For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the claimant is not disabled as that term is defined in the Equality Act 2010. The claim of disability discrimination is, accordingly, dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant has requested written reasons for the judgment delivered orally at the preliminary hearing on 10 December 2025.[2]The preliminary hearing was fixed to determine whether the claimant had a disability in accordance with the definition contained in Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”).[3]At a case management preliminary hearing on 5 September 2025, the claimant was ordered to provide:(a) copies of all documents and other material within his possession or control which support his position that his eye condition is a disability as defined in Section 6 of the Act; and(b) a disability impact statement.[4]Upon receipt of that information, the respondent was required to confirm whether it accepted that the claimant had a disability.[5]The claimant produced a disability impact statement and a small number of documents in response to the order. In advance of a second case management preliminary hearing, the respondent maintained its position that the claimant was not disabled and provided comments on the claimant’s disability impact statement.[6]This preliminary hearing was fixed at that second case management preliminary hearing.[7]At this hearing, the claimant spoke to his disability impact statement and the documents produced. He was questioned by the respondent’s representative and by the Tribunal. In some material respects, there was a lack of clarity and/or inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence. He had a tendency to exaggerate in order to support his claim. Relevant examples of these evidential issues are set out in the Findings in Fact section which follows. Findings in Fact[8]The claimant was employed from November 2023 to March 2025. He has an issue with his eyes. In his disability impact statement, he states that he suffers from “raised eye pressure (ocular hypertension/glaucoma risk) and optic nerve issues which cause frequent migraines, severe pain and temporary visual disturbances”.[9]During his evidence before the Employment Tribunal, however, he confirmed that the condition he was relying upon is strabismus (sometimes known as a squint) being a tendency for the eyes to deviate outwards with varying control.[10]Prior to the commencement of his employment with the respondent, the claimant completed a medical questionnaire. In that, he ticked a box to say that he had good eyesight (with glasses) and was receiving no medical treatment.[11]A prescription prepared by an optician dated 25 October 2024 identifies the claimant as requiring glasses for distance vision and recommends a further examination in 24 months.[12]The only medical record produced by the claimant which mentions any eye condition is a letter dated 7 April 2025 from the Orthoptic department of University Hospital Crosshouse. The terms of that letter are consistent with the claimant having the condition strabismus at that time of his visits on 8 November 2024 and 26 March 2025 (the date of his dismissal).[13]The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant suffered from any of the other impairments set out in his disability impact statement. There is nothing in any of the documentation produces to substantiate them and he did not maintain that position before the Tribunal itself.[14]The letter of 7 April confirms that the claimant was given a prism to help with the strabismus. The Orthoptist describes fitting a stronger prism when the claimant attended for the second time.[15]The Orthoptist notes referring the claimant to a Consultant Ophthalmologist. The claimant produced a number of letters which were seeking to schedule or reschedule appointments. No clinical assessment by a Consultant Ophthalmologist was produced.[16]In her letter of 7 April 2025, the Orthoptist notes the claimant as describing blurred vision and the need to reset his eyes by closing them to allow them to readjust, particularly when he was tired. In his disability impact statement, the claimant described a number of symptoms said to arise from the various eye conditions identified, including sudden spikes in eye pressure and severe migraines. During his evidence, the claimant stated that symptoms arose only when he was “overworked” and not otherwise. The Tribunal accepted that when the claimant is tired, he may need to close his eyes to regain focus. It did not accept that he suffered from other symptoms which are not supported by the medical evidence and/or which do not flow from the strabismus condition under consideration.[17]Although the claimant stated in his impact statement that he had been prescribed medication, during his evidence, he confirmed that he was not in fact receiving any medication. The Tribunal was satisfied that the latter is true. There is nothing in any medical information to suggest that the claimant has been prescribed medication.[18]In his disability impact statement, the claimant stated that his symptoms have persisted since at least November 2024. His evidence before the Tribunal was that they had persisted since birth. The tribunal was satisfied, having regard to the letter from the Orthoptist, that the condition has given rise to issues since at least November 2024. Nothing in the medical evidence pointed to any previous issues.[19]In his disability impact statement, the claimant described a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities such as reading, using a computer, and driving at night.[20]So far as reading and using a computer are concerned, the Tribunal accepted the respondent’s account that the claimant did not exhibit any effects during his work at all. He has no absences from work and never raised any concerns during his employment. His pre-employment questionnaire and his optician’s report do not indicate any issues with close vision.[21]It was put to the claimant that he routinely drove to work for 12 hour night shifts. In response to that, the claimant stated that driving to work at 8.00pm and driving home at 8.00am meant that he was only driving during daylight hours. Such a proposition is clearly not sustainable given that he drove in winter months.
Relevant Law
[22]Section 6 of the Act defines disability as follows: (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[23]“Substantial” means more than minor or trivial under Section 212(1) of the Act.[24]In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4 the EAT held that in cases where disability status is disputed, there are four essential questions which a Tribunal should consider separately and, where appropriate, sequentially. These are:a. Does the person have a physical or mental impairment?b. Does that impairment have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?c. Is that effect substantial?d. Is that effect long-term?[25]The burden of proof is on a claimant to show that he or she satisfies the statutory definition of disability.[26]The term “impairment” is not defined in the Act. In Rugamer v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd and another 2002 [ICR] 381 the EAT referred to “some damage, defect, disorder or disease compared with a person having a full set of physical and mental equipment in normal condition.”[27]What are normal day to day activities has also been considered in case authorities. The Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey [2019] IRLR 805 approved the approach of the EAT in that case, that “The phrase ‘normal day to day activities’ should be given an interpretation which encompasses the activities which are relevant to participation in professional life”.[28]In Igweike v TSB Bank Plc [2020] IRLR 267, it was held that an effect on normal day-to-day activities may be established if there is a requisite effect on normal day-to-day or professional or work activities, even if there is none on activities outside work or the particular job. The EAT commented that “In many, perhaps most successful cases, disabled status is established because the requisite effects are found on normal day to day activities outside work, or both outside and in work”.[29]The Tribunal first considered whether the claimant suffers from an impairment. Having regard to the evidence presented, it was satisfied that the claimant has the condition strabismus. It did not accept that the claimant suffers from any of the other alleged conditions in his disability impact statement. 30.The Tribunal went on to consider whether that impairment has, or had, an effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. For the reasons set out above, it was not satisfied that the account of the effects on day-to-day activities put forward by the claimant in his impact statement was well founded. In relation to driving at night, the main issue raised by the claimant, the claimant’s evidence was rejected. He was demonstrably able to drive at night and nothing in the medical records suggested any concern about him doing so.[31]At best, the evidence accepted by the Tribunal pointed to overwork causing the claimant to rest his eyes on occasion and the Tribunal accepted that issue to arise. Although, for the reasons set out above, the tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence pointed to any difficulty with reading or near vision, it is accepted that the need to close eyes to refocus when tired might nonetheless have an impact on those activities.[32]The Tribunal was not satisfied, however, that such an effect was substantial. There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the claimant had any issues when at work and nothing in the medical evidence pointed to there being an issue with reading or close vision. The tribunal was satisfied, therefore, that any effect was minor or trivial.[33]In considering duration, it is accepted that the claimant has suffered from the impairment identified for at least 12 months. The relevant question, however, is whether the effect is long term. Given the findings above, it is not necessary to address this point, but it is notable that the claimant’s position is that the effect only arose was when he was “overworked” by the respondent and that he did not suffer any effect at other times. The period between the first medical assessment describing any effect (November 2024) and the termination of the claimant’s employment (March 2025) being less than 12 months, the Tribunal would not in any event have been satisfied that the definition of long term had been satisfied (or was likely to be).[34]For these reasons, the claimant has not satisfied the Tribunal that he meets the relevant standard of disability. His claim of disability discrimination is, accordingly, dismissed. His other claims will proceed in the normal way.