Immunocompromised due to splenectomy: tribunal finds shielding employee was disabled
A former employee who was immunocompromised after a partial splenectomy has been found to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal ruled that her condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #immunocompromised
- #splenectomy
- #shielding
- #covid-19
- #long-term-effect
Key facts
- The claimant had a partial splenectomy in 1996, removing 95% of her spleen, leaving her immunocompromised.
- She was identified as extremely clinically vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic and advised to shield.
- From 23 March 2020 to 24 February 2021, she did not leave her home or land due to infection risk.
- The respondent accepted the claimant had a physical impairment and that it was long-term.
- The tribunal found the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, which was long-term.
Timeline
-
Partial splenectomy
The claimant underwent a partial splenectomy, removing 95% of her spleen.
-
Start of shielding
The claimant began shielding due to being immunocompromised, staying at home and not leaving her land.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work at the respondent's premises, ending her shielding period.
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued a claim form including a complaint of disability discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
A closed preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bax listed the case for a disability status determination.
-
Substantive preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on whether the claimant was disabled.
-
Judgment date
Employment Judge Youngs issued a judgment finding the claimant was a disabled person.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discrimination. Specifically, it considered whether her immunocompromised condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her day-to-day activities, such as avoiding infection risks.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times. The key reasons were:
- The claimant had a physical impairment (immunocompromised due to splenectomy).
- The impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities, including avoiding crowds, not using public transport, and taking daily supplements to manage infection risk.
- The effect was long-term, as it had lasted over 12 months (since 1996) and was likely to recur.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage, as the hearing only determined disability status.
Lessons & takeaways
- A condition that requires you to take protective measures (like avoiding crowds or taking supplements) can still count as a 'substantial adverse effect' even if the measures themselves are common.
- Long-term effect can be established by showing the condition has lasted at least 12 months or is likely to recur, even if symptoms fluctuate.
- Government shielding guidance during the pandemic can be strong evidence that a condition is considered serious enough to have a substantial effect.
What this case shows
This case highlights how a hidden condition — being immunocompromised due to a partial splenectomy — can meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant had undergone surgery in 1996 that removed 95% of her spleen, leaving her highly prone to infections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she was advised to shield and did not leave her home for nearly a year.
The tribunal accepted that her impairment had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, even though many of her protective steps — like taking ginger and garlic, exercising, and avoiding crowds — are things people without a disability might also do. The key was that she did them out of necessity, not choice.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent, Richmond Harbour Hotel, argued that the claimant's condition did not have a substantial effect because she was able to work and carry out many activities. However, the tribunal noted that the effect must be assessed with any corrective measures in place — and those measures themselves showed the impact. The respondent might have avoided this preliminary loss by engaging earlier with medical evidence and recognising that shielding guidance from the government was a strong indicator of disability.
Why this matters
This decision is a reminder that disability discrimination claims can succeed even where the impairment is not visible or does not prevent work entirely. For employees with long-term health conditions that require ongoing management, the legal definition of disability is broader than many employers assume. The case also shows that the pandemic's shielding advice can serve as powerful evidence of a condition's seriousness.
Similar cases
Clinically extremely vulnerable manager dismissed for refusing to return to unsafe office: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A branch manager with 12 years' service who was clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after his employer demanded he return to an office he considered unsafe. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was a sham.
Swimming teachers dismissed after furlough dispute: a conduct dismissal that went wrong
A tribunal found that Achieve Lifestyle Ltd unfairly dismissed two swimming teachers after a dispute over furlough pay, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for one teacher with breast cancer.
Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.
Head butler dismissed by redundancy after Brexit and COVID: claim fails
A head butler with six years' service lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after a tribunal found his redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.