The claimant brought a disability discrimination case against the respondents and this was a preliminary hearing as to whether the claimant was a disabled person within the parameters of the legislation.

The claimant moved to live and work in the UK from Hungary in 2011.  She does not speak English and relies upon her husband and/or son for translation and assistance with language.   The claimant has a history of diagnosed moderate depression and anxiety, but she does not consider that it has a disabling effect.   In 2014 the claimant had an incident at work where she was unable or disallowed from visiting the toilet when she had an urgent need.  This occurred twice and she states that she was humiliated and felt that she was being talked about and bullied.  The Tribunal could not make a finding of fact that she had been bullied but accepted that it was the claimant’s perception.  As a result, she sought medical attention for low mood, and she was prescribed medication.   This was on/off for a while and included suspected PTSD and suicidal thoughts at particular times.  The claimant had 23 sessions with the psychotherapist in 2016 and the PTSD was seen to emanate from the humiliation faced by not being able to use the toilet back in 2014.

The claimant did not return to the GP about PTSD after December 2015.  The next reference to it was in September 2019 when the claimant was said to be unfit for work due to anxiety and depression. Interestingly, the doctor stated that the claimant would need regular access to toilets and due to the PTSD, she would require the support of her husband so they would need a workplace together.   There was no detail as to why.  The Tribunal found that the visit to the GP and being certified was part of the wider claim being brought which centred upon events in June-July 2019.

Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in NI) defines disability as a mental or physical impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.   The Tribunal helpfully outlined the statutory guidance stating that impairment is given its ordinary meaning, substantial means that it goes beyond the normal differences of ability which may exist among people and that the effect must be more than minor or trivial.  Long-term means 12 months.  Normal day-to-day activities is not defined in the statute, but the Tribunal stated it includes things that people do on a regular or daily basis such as perhaps going to work or going to the shops, exercising or socialising.

In applying this to the claimant’s situation, it was found that the claimant was not adversely affected by the PTSD after December 2015. In June-July 2019 the Tribunal was not convinced that the depression outlined by the claimant stopped her from going to work or shopping.   It was the Tribunal’s finding that she chose not to and that it may have been due to the difficulties she had with the English language and that she would find social interaction difficult.  Accordingly, this did not fit into the definition of what constituted a disability, and her case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case gives a good synopsis of the particular features within the definition of ‘disability’.   There is clearly a factual and evidential basis to making a decision.  In this case, the Tribunal stated the claimant was not convincing as a witness and made the suggestion that she may not have left the house due to difficulties socially interacting rather than issues with depression and anxiety.  The particular components of a disability within the legislation must be borne in mind when facing a claim for disability discrimination.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603cc30ee90e0705536ca8f3/Mrs_T_Toth_-v-_Hr_Go__Liverpool__Ltd___Other_1601756.2019_-__Judgment.pdf