Former employee's disability claims largely struck out after failing to prove disability
A tribunal found that a former employee of Solus (London) Limited was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010, striking out most of his discrimination claims as out of time. His constructive unfair dismissal claim will proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #strike-out
- #time-limits
- #conduct-extending-over-a-period
- #constructive-unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant presented claims of age, race, disability, and religion or belief discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
- Employment Judge Lewis identified the claimant's alleged disabilities as PTSD, epilepsy, and a tendency to seizures.
- The claimant produced no medical evidence of PTSD or epilepsy; an EEG for epilepsy was normal.
- The claimant had one documented seizure during employment (13 July 2020) and reported minor seizures without medical treatment.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed all disability discrimination claims.
- Claims 1-21 were struck out as out of time and not part of continuing conduct; claims 22-27 and the constructive unfair dismissal claim survived.
Timeline
-
Earliest alleged discriminatory act
The first of 28 alleged discriminatory acts, occurring on the claimant's start date with the respondent.
-
Claimant started employment
The claimant began working for Solus (London) Limited.
-
Seizure episode
The claimant had a seizure and attended A&E; no neurological deficit was found.
-
21st alleged discriminatory act
The last act among those found to be out of time.
-
22nd alleged discriminatory act
The first act within the time limit, according to the tribunal's calculation.
-
Claimant signed off sick for stress
The claimant was signed off work due to stress, described as 'stress at work'.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented his claim to the Watford Employment Tribunal.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment with the respondent terminated in September 2021.
-
Case management hearing before EJ Lewis
Employment Judge Lewis conducted a case management discussion and identified the claimant's alleged disabilities.
-
Preliminary hearing on disability and strike out
Employment Judge Palmer heard evidence and submissions on disability status and the respondent's strike out application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and whether to strike out his discrimination claims for being out of time or having no reasonable prospects of success.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not disabled, dismissing all disability discrimination claims. Claims 1-21 were struck out as out of time and not part of continuing conduct. Claims 22-27 and the constructive unfair dismissal claim survived.
- No compensation awarded at this stage; the surviving claims will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must provide medical evidence showing you meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- Claims must be brought within three months of the last discriminatory act; acts outside that period will be struck out unless they are part of 'continuing conduct'.
- A single seizure without ongoing medical treatment or diagnosis is unlikely to amount to a long-term impairment.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; seeking legal advice early can help you understand time limits and evidence requirements.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of meeting the legal definition of disability before bringing a disability discrimination claim. The claimant alleged he had PTSD, epilepsy, and a tendency to seizures, but produced no medical evidence of PTSD or epilepsy, and an EEG for epilepsy was normal. The tribunal found that his one documented seizure and reported minor seizures did not amount to a long-term condition under the Equality Act 2010.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have obtained medical records and a GP report to support his disability assertion. He also could have brought his claims earlier; the tribunal found that 21 of 28 alleged discriminatory acts were out of time because they occurred more than three months before he presented his claim, and were not part of continuing conduct.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision serves as a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise disability status rigorously, especially where medical evidence is lacking. Employees alleging disability discrimination should gather medical evidence early and ensure they file claims within the statutory time limits. The surviving claims for constructive unfair dismissal will proceed, but the bulk of the discrimination case has been removed.
Similar cases
Epilepsy discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A fraud consultant with epilepsy lost his disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Lloyds Bank because he filed them too late. The tribunal also found the claims lacked merit.
Constructive dismissal claim struck out after employee failed to pursue case
A playgroup employee's constructive dismissal claim was struck out after she failed to respond to a strike-out warning, ending a case that had already been delayed by a police investigation.
25-year employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after harassment allegations ruled out of time
A process controller with 25 years' service had his harassment claim struck out as too old, and his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after a full hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and any discrimination was justified.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.