Welcome back everyone to our case of the week. Last week, we looked at the Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Minis Childcare Ltd and Ms Z Hilton-Webb, involving a “small font” PCP (provision, criterion or practice).  For anyone that missed it, you can find it here. This week, we are looking at the case of Ms A Castillo Venzor v Princeton Biopartners Ltd and the issue of whether the Claimant’s mental impairment following a panic attack was a long-term effect within the meaning of disability in the Equality Act 2010.

Background

The Respondent, Princeton Biopartners Limited, is a consultancy advising on biomedical innovations and the Claimant, Miss Castillo Venzor, worked for the Respondent from October 2022 until she went on sick leave in April 2023.

The Claimant found her job to be very stressful and regularly clocked up 55 hours a week and sometimes as many as 60 – 70 hours. The Claimant was one of five junior employees and during her short time with the Respondent, the other four junior employees resigned. Each time a member of the team left they were not replaced and the workload significantly increased as it was distributed between the remaining employees. The Claimant was concerned about the long hours she was expected to work and raised concerns about work-life balance to the Respondent.

Examples of how the Claimant found the workplace stressful included: only being able to take one day off when suffering with flu, being subject to aggressive and threatening behaviour on several occasions, being put under additional pressure when raising concerns about work-life balance and having to be available to her line manager on the phone during the evening until late at night.

On 26 April 2023, the Claimant was invited to a performance review meeting which came as a shock to her as she had not had any performance reviews, development plan or objectives to meet. Within 1.5 days of the meeting, on 28 April 2023, the Claimant suffered a panic attack and went home sick. On 2 May she saw her GP, was signed off work, and subsequently diagnosed with depression, anxiety or panic and post-traumatic stress disorder.

On 19 June 2023, she received a letter from the Respondent dismissing her for time management, attention to detail and critical engagement. The Claimant stated she suffered another panic attack after reading the dismissal letter.

The Claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal that she was dismissed because of her poor mental health which amounted to a disability.

Employment Tribunal

It was for the ET to determine whether the Claimant had a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”).

The Respondent accepted that following her panic attack until her dismissal, the Claimant suffered a mental impairment which had a substantial effect on her day-to-day activities. However, the issue was whether this mental impairment was a long-term effect within the meaning of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act i.e. to be long term an effect must either have already lasted for 12 months or be likely to last for 12 months.

The Tribunal found the Claimant had suffered with several mental health conditions since 2011, but what triggered this one was the high-pressure, stressful workplace environment. The Claimant’s psychologist reported that although she showed significant progress, she remained susceptible to certain events triggering depressive symptoms; the Judge found that is not, in itself, a diagnosis of an underlying condition that gives rise to the possibility of recurring symptoms and therefore the Claimant’s depression was not a long-term effect by virtue of having lasted for 12 months.

The next question for the Tribunal was whether it was likely to last 12 months.

The Claimant’s evidence indicated that without treatment, she would not have recovered and might have taken her own life. The Judge treated this evidence cautiously as it was subjective, but found it clear that without treatment, her recovery would have been very slow. Therefore, as of June 2023, had the Claimant remained employed by the Respondent, her depression, anxiety, and PTSD could persist for at least 12 months, and if she had recovered enough to return to work, these conditions could well recur within that period.

The Judge found the Claimant was disabled from 28 April 2023 by virtue of having severe depression, extreme anxiety or panic, low self-esteem and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Takeaway Points

The issue between the parties in this case was whether the Claimant’s mental impairment following a panic attack was a long-term effect within the meaning of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010:

The effect of an impairment is long-term if—

  • it has lasted for at least 12 months,
  • it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or
  • it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

The Act gives additional guidance as to the interpretation of “long-term” for example, when assessing the likelihood of an effect lasting 12 months, consideration should be given to the circumstances at the time the alleged discrimination occurred. Events occurring after that time are irrelevant. The typical duration of such an effect on an individual and any specific factors related to the individual, such as general health or age, should also be considered.

It is also important to note that conditions with effects which recur only sporadically or for short periods can still qualify as impairments in respect of the meaning of ‘long-term’. Further guidance is given in the statutory guidance given by the Secretary of State in 2011 and Section C Paragraph 6 helpfully gives examples of recurring events that are and are not long term.

If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.