Clinical director's disability claim dismissed: employer unaware of hypothyroidism
A veterinary surgeon who claimed disability discrimination over her dismissal lost her case because her employer did not know and could not reasonably have known she was disabled due to hypothyroidism.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #hypothyroidism
- #disability-discrimination
- #strike-out
- #constructive-knowledge
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a clinical director lead veterinary surgeon from 20 June 2022 to 29 July 2022.
- The claimant has hypothyroidism, diagnosed in 1996, which is long-term and controlled by medication.
- The claimant did not consider herself disabled and did not disclose any day-to-day difficulties to the respondent.
- The respondent sent the claimant a pre-placement health questionnaire which she did not complete.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient service (less than two years).
- The disability discrimination claim was dismissed because the respondent had no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as clinical director lead veterinary surgeon for Medivet Group Limited.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed from her role.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
-
Unfair dismissal struck out
Employment Judge Cox struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient service.
-
Extension granted for disability claim
Employment Judge Martin granted an extension of time for the claimant to bring a direct disability discrimination claim.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Flanagan clarified issues and listed a further preliminary hearing for 30 August 2023.
-
Preliminary hearing on disability and strike out
Employment Judge Moxon heard evidence and submissions on whether the claimant was disabled and whether the respondent had knowledge, and also considered strike out and deposit order applications.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Moxon issued judgment dismissing the disability discrimination claim and making a deposit order on the sex discrimination claim.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Moxon refused the claimant's application for reconsideration.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 due to hypothyroidism, and if so, whether the employer knew or should have known about the disability when it dismissed her.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled because her hypothyroidism did not have a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities. Even if she were disabled, the employer had no actual or constructive knowledge of it. The claim was dismissed.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with long-term conditions should consider whether they meet the legal definition of disability, even if they feel the condition is well-controlled.
- Employers cannot be liable for disability discrimination if they did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know about the disability.
- Failing to complete a pre-placement health questionnaire may deprive an employer of information that could lead to knowledge of a disability.
- Short service (under two years) means no unfair dismissal protection, but discrimination claims can still be brought regardless of length of service.
A claim that failed before it began
This case shows how crucial it is for an employer to have knowledge of a disability before a discrimination claim can succeed. The claimant, a clinical director lead veterinary surgeon, was dismissed after just over a month in the role. She claimed her dismissal was an act of direct disability discrimination because she has hypothyroidism, a condition she has had since 1996. However, she did not consider herself disabled and had not told her employer about any difficulties.
The tribunal had to decide two things: first, whether the claimant was legally disabled, and second, whether the employer knew or should have known about it. On the evidence, the claimant said her condition was well-controlled with medication and did not substantially affect her daily activities during normal working hours. The medical evidence supported this. As a result, the tribunal found she was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
What the employer could have done differently
Even if the claimant had been disabled, the employer had no actual or constructive knowledge. The claimant had not completed a pre-placement health questionnaire, and there was no evidence that her condition was obvious or that she had mentioned any symptoms. The employer could not be expected to guess. This highlights the importance of employees disclosing conditions that may amount to disabilities, and of employers ensuring that health questionnaires are completed and followed up.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the legal definition of disability requires a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. A diagnosis alone is not enough. Employees who feel their condition is under control may not meet the threshold. For employers, the key takeaway is that without knowledge of a disability, they cannot be held liable for discrimination arising from it. The case also illustrates that short-service employees cannot bring unfair dismissal claims, but discrimination claims remain available if the right conditions are met.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
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.
Spray operative with anxiety and depression: strike-out of reasonable adjustments claim refused
A tribunal refused to strike out a reasonable adjustments claim brought by a spray operative with mixed anxiety and depression, despite the employer arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects. The employer had already conceded unfair dismissal.