Unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim dismissed. On the evidence, the impairment did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the 1995 Act. 

The claimant commenced work with the respondent as a rental receptionist in April 2023.  Her contract outlined that her probationary period was 12 months and her performance would be monitored and appraised. The claimant’s contract was terminated in January 2023, some nine months after she had started.

One of the issues during the employment was that the claimant alleged that she was promised that she would be put through training to obtain an HGV licence.  The respondent stated it was discussed but it was not promised. It was never part of the contract of employment. 

The ET1 form stated that the respondent knew that there were health issues but did not elaborate. It was only through the case management hearing that it was presented as ‘back issues’ and that she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2017.   However, whilst she states she discussed it with the respondent there was no evidence of same.  Additionally, there was no mention of it in the documentation she completed when she began her employment. 

The issues leading to dismissal were largely related to what was regarded as a ‘blasé’ attitude to work.  This led to some issues with bills not being sent out and failing to spot damage to a vehicle which was returned. 

The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.  The unfair dismissal case was outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the basis that the claimant did not have one years’ continuous service.  In any event, the Tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed that the claimant was underperforming in her work. 

When it comes to the disability discrimination point the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that there was an adverse impact on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities.   The Tribunal recognised that there was a fibromyalgia diagnosis and in no way was disputing that from the claimant but looked at it through an analysis of the legislation. Additionally, such diagnosis and its effect was not shown to the employer.  Accordingly, the claim was dismissed. 

This case demonstrates that the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate they are disabled within the meaning of the 1995 Act.  The Tribunal was very clear in recognising that the claimant did have a diagnosis and did not seek to make any broader judgment on the claimant.  However, it had to make a decision on the basis of the evidence adduced.  The lack of evidence about the finer details of the effect and whether it was an adverse effect on day-to-day activities was the reason for the decision.  This should be taken into account for those going to the Tribunal and seeking to show that they are disabled within the meaning of the Act.   

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/