Funeral director with 31 years' service fails to establish disability status
An employment tribunal has ruled that a funeral director with 31 years' service was not a disabled person under the Equality Act, dismissing his disability discrimination claims.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #anxiety-depression
- #high-blood-pressure
- #dyslexia
- #preliminary-hearing
- #disability-definition
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent from 1990 until dismissal on 30 November 2021.
- The claimant relied on three impairments: anxiety and depression, high blood pressure, and dyslexia.
- The claimant's medical records showed anxiety and depression from around July/August 2021, but the tribunal found the substantial adverse effects ended by October 2021.
- The claimant provided no evidence of impact on day-to-day activities from high blood pressure.
- The claimant failed to provide evidence of a dyslexia diagnosis or that it had a substantial adverse effect.
- The tribunal concluded the claimant was not a disabled person at the material times.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent, a family funeral business.
-
Interaction with Louise Rowlands
An interaction occurred that led to a disciplinary process being instigated.
-
First fit note for anxiety/depression
The claimant received a fit note citing anxiety and depression, and was prescribed Sertraline.
-
Medication review
GP record shows a medication review, discussing pain relief only.
-
Fit note for hypertension
Fit note cites hypertension, not anxiety or depression.
-
Fit note for low mood and hypertension
Fit note cites low mood, hypertension, stress, and alcohol abuse.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Increased antidepressant dosage
The claimant's Sertraline dosage increased to 100mg.
-
ET1 claim filed
The claimant filed an employment tribunal claim.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing to determine disability status and amendment application.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found claimant not disabled and dismissed disability discrimination claims.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts, specifically from July to November 2021.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims after finding the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's anxiety and depression had substantial adverse effects only from July to October 2021, not at the time of dismissal in November 2021.
- No evidence was provided that high blood pressure had any impact on day-to-day activities.
- The claimant failed to provide evidence of a dyslexia diagnosis or that it had a substantial adverse effect.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must prove you are a disabled person under the Equality Act at the time of the alleged discrimination.
- Medical evidence is crucial: you need to show that your impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
- Even if you have a diagnosed condition, the tribunal will look at whether it actually affected you at the relevant time, not just at the date of diagnosis.
- If you rely on multiple impairments, you must provide evidence for each one separately.
This case shows the importance of establishing disability status early in a claim. The former employee, a funeral director with 31 years' service, alleged disability discrimination after his dismissal in November 2021. However, the tribunal had to first determine whether he was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined three impairments: anxiety and depression, high blood pressure, and dyslexia. For anxiety and depression, the medical records showed the claimant had a fit note in August 2021 and was prescribed antidepressants. But by October 2021, a medication review mentioned only pain relief, and a fit note cited hypertension, not anxiety. The tribunal found that any substantial adverse effects had ended by October 2021, before the dismissal in November. For high blood pressure, there was no evidence it affected day-to-day activities. For dyslexia, the claimant provided no diagnosis or evidence of impact.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have provided more detailed medical evidence, such as a report from his GP or a specialist, showing how his conditions affected him at the relevant times. He also could have obtained a formal dyslexia assessment. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been warned about providing evidence but failed to do so.
Why this matters
This case highlights that even long-serving employees must meet the strict legal definition of disability. The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence, not on the merits of the discrimination claims themselves. For anyone considering a disability discrimination claim, gathering contemporaneous medical evidence is essential.
Similar cases
ADHD disability claim fails for lack of medical evidence
A former employee who claimed disability discrimination based on ADHD had her claim dismissed after the tribunal found she had not proven she had the condition on the balance of probabilities.
Long-Covid recognised as a disability, but IT worker's discrimination claims dismissed
An employment tribunal found that long-Covid can amount to a disability under the Equality Act, but dismissed all claims from an IT employee who argued he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by CGI IT UK Ltd.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being over three months late
A human resources analyst who claimed constructive dismissal lost her case because she presented her claim more than three months after leaving her job, and the tribunal ruled it was reasonably practicable for her to have done so in time.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.