In this case the employee failed to provide evidence of how his disability adversely impacts his normal day to day activities.

The claimant was a flexible worker for Angard Staffing, a company that supplies Royal Mail with casual staff. He suffers from essential hypertension, namely high blood pressure, and often experienced symptoms such as headaches, tiredness and respiratory difficulties. The claimant took medication to prevent risks relating to the illness, such as a heart attack.

On his job application form the claimant stated he did not consider himself to have a disability. He was sent his shift pattern via text message. He normally finished at 10pm, however, around the Christmas period the mail centre required more staff and he was asked to work nights. He initially agreed to this yet subsequently emailed his employer stating his ‘health condition’ would prevent him from doing so and requested to be moved back to his regular slot.

He failed to attend a number of shifts, later informing his employer this was owing to his aforementioned health condition. Angard informed the claimant his services were no longer required. The claimant brought a number of claims before the tribunal, including a claim for disability discrimination.

The tribunal held the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence on how his hypertension affected his day to day activities, and even if he had proved he was disabled, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of any disability.

Dismissing the appeal, the UKEAT held the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof on him, namely, to show through his evidence or the production of medical evidence, that the effects of having essential hypertension have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, and stated the tribunal’s conclusion on constructive knowledge was one that it was entitled to reach.

“The only matter referred to was a desire not to work regular night shift. The claimant offered no explanation regarding the impact working regular night shift had on him and/or why this was caused by his impairment.”

“The Employment Judge had not erred in finding that the respondent could not reasonably have known about the claimant’s disability. The Tribunal had to deal with all of the evidence before it… the Employment Judge looked correctly at what the respondent actually knew together with all the information available and decided that such information was insufficient to infer constructive knowledge.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b9a893fe5274a137ded03ae/Francis_Mutombo-Mpania_v_Angard_Staffing_Solutions_Ltd__UKEATS_0002_18_JW.pdf