NN v Mitie Ltd (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard and brought claims of disability and sex discrimination. The preliminary hearing was convened to determine whether the Plaintiff was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the period from 1 March to 12 September 2019. The Plaintiff gave oral evidence and relied on an Impact Statement, supported by documentary evidence provided by the Defendant. The Defendant contested the Plaintiff’s status as disabled, primarily challenging the sufficiency and impact of the Plaintiff’s impairments during the relevant period.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was a disabled person as defined under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s impairments—specifically Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, anxiety, and delayed emotional development—had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the Plaintiff’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s delayed emotional development amounted to a disability.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• There were gaps in the Plaintiff’s medical records, and the Defendant sought to explore whether these gaps were significant.
• The Defendant questioned whether the impairments had a sufficiently substantial impact on the Plaintiff’s day-to-day activities during the relevant period.
• The Defendant disputed that delayed emotional development constituted a disability.
• The Defendant accepted that if the impairments were proven and had a substantial effect, they would not argue that the impairments did not last or were not likely to last for more than 12 months.
• Specifically regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the Defendant argued that symptoms related to an earlier experience and did not substantially affect the Plaintiff during employment.
• The Defendant contended that depression and anxiety did not have a sufficient impact to amount to disability at the relevant time.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reviewing the medical evidence, including mental health assessments and reports from health professionals, which described the Plaintiff as vulnerable, emotionally immature, and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, anxiety, and delayed emotional development. The court noted the Plaintiff’s symptoms, such as hypervigilance, panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and social withdrawal, all of which were corroborated by medical evidence and the Plaintiff’s oral testimony.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that delayed emotional development should be treated as a separate disability requiring distinct analysis. It found no clear separation of symptoms attributable exclusively to one condition or another and determined that the cumulative impact of the Plaintiff’s impairments was relevant.

The court accepted the Plaintiff’s explanation for gaps in medical records and found no adverse inference. It also considered the guidance from the Equality Act 2010 and relevant case law, emphasizing that the focus is on the effect of impairments on day-to-day activities rather than diagnostic labels.

Applying the four-step test from Goodwin, the court found that the Plaintiff had a mental impairment, that it adversely affected her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, that this effect was substantial (more than minor or trivial), and that it was long-term (lasting or likely to last for 12 months or more). The court noted that the Plaintiff’s impairments were present at least as far back as 2017 and that the symptoms had a significant impact on activities such as forming relationships, coping with stress, and performing everyday tasks.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Plaintiff was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, depression, and delayed emotional development. The claim that the Plaintiff was disabled is upheld for the relevant period.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff meets the statutory definition of disability, which is a prerequisite for advancing claims of disability discrimination. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent but applies existing legal principles and statutory guidance to the facts presented.