The claimant worked as a trading assistant for the respondent from August 2009 until her resignation on 23rd December 2019. In 2013 the claimant was referred to a cardiology consultant after reporting faintness and light headedness. There were multiple referrals to cardiology over a period of years, with a difficulty in diagnosis ranging from postural hypotension to ventricular ectopic beats and supraventricular tachycardia. In one of her return-to-work interviews, the claimant stated that the condition does not affect her work and that she required no adjustments. The absences continued for various reasons including suspected kidney stones and then work-related stress at the end of 2018. 

In a meeting to discuss reasonable adjustments in Summer 2019, the claimant stated that she was under ‘constant medical supervision’ but that she required no adjustments to her work. The final period of being signed off was on the basis of stress which was seen to change her eating and sleeping patterns. Despite reporting this, this was not in the GP notes, nor did she require any therapy or medication. The fit note relating to this was extended until 20th January 2020. The claimant resigned on 23rd December 2019, before entering a job in her chosen career of psychology.  

The issue for the Tribunal to decide upon was whether the claimant had a disability in line with the legislation. To this end, the supraventricular tachycardia was examined. On this the Tribunal found that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence that it had an adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This was clear by the fact she was able to complete her Master’s degree as well as doing normal day-to-day activities. The claimant also sought to rely upon her urinary tract infections, but this was not found to have the requisite long-term adverse effect.

Lastly, an argument was made in relation to the work-related stress. As outlined in Morgan v Staffordshire University, it was for the claimant to prove the mental impairment, yet no medical evidence was adduced. The effect of stress was found to have been overstated by the claimant and that her symptoms were more reactionary to her perception of how she was being managed. Accordingly, there was no finding of disability, so the case was dismissed. 

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the Tribunal’s approach to determining if there is a disability. The important feature to bear in mind is that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. The fact that the claimant had failed to adduce evidence in relation to the arguments put forward was fatal to those arguments. This should be borne in mind when preparing for a disability discrimination case where the actual existence of the disability is in doubt. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ae456bd3bf7f737d5c533e/Ms_C_Higgins_v_Sainsburys_Supermarkets_Limited_-_2402153_2020.pdf