Disability discrimination claim based on mother's disability struck out
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claim that she was discriminated against because of her caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, ruling that section 15 of the Equality Act does not cover discrimination by association.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant alleged disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 based on her mother's disability.
- The claimant's claim of disability discrimination was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant's claim for unpaid annual leave was dismissed for non-compliance with an Unless Order.
- The claimant's remaining claim of automatic unfair dismissal was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
- All claims have been concluded.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued her claim, including a disability discrimination complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010 based on her mother's disability.
-
Order for further information
The claimant was ordered to supply further information about the alleged unfavourable treatment and the disability relied upon.
-
First hearing (strike out application)
Employment Judge Quill heard the respondent's application to strike out the disability discrimination claim. The claimant appeared in person.
-
Judgment on strike out
Employment Judge Quill issued a judgment striking out the disability discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospects of success.
-
Unless Order sent
The judgment and an Unless Order were sent to the parties, requiring compliance by the claimant.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Tobin heard the remaining claims. The claimant participated by telephone from Cyprus. The claim for unpaid annual leave was dismissed for non-compliance with the Unless Order, and the unfair dismissal claim was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
-
Final judgment sent
The final judgment was sent to the parties, concluding all proceedings.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a claim of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, based on the claimant's association with her disabled mother, had any reasonable prospects of success. It also considered whether the remaining claims should be struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospects of success. The claim was based on the claimant's mother's disability, but section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 only protects against discrimination arising from the claimant's own disability, not by association. The tribunal also dismissed the claim for unpaid annual leave for non-compliance with an Unless Order and struck out the unfair dismissal claim for failing to comply with tribunal orders. No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed or struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 only protects against discrimination arising from your own disability, not from caring for someone else with a disability.
- If you are a carer, you may have other legal protections (e.g., indirect discrimination or flexible working requests), but not under section 15.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, such as providing further information, can result in your claim being struck out.
- Representing yourself in a tribunal requires strict adherence to procedural rules; non-compliance can lead to dismissal of your case.
A claim that couldn't succeed from the start
This case shows the limits of disability discrimination law when it comes to caring responsibilities. The former employee argued that she was treated unfavourably because of something arising from her mother's disability, such as needing time off to care for her. However, section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is specifically designed to protect individuals from discrimination arising from their own disability, not from their association with a disabled person. The tribunal found that even taking her case at its highest, it had no reasonable prospects of success.
What the employer did right
Circle Wood Ltd applied to strike out the claim early, and the tribunal agreed. The employer's legal team correctly identified that the claimant's case did not meet the legal test. This is a reminder that employers facing claims based on novel or stretched legal arguments can seek to have them struck out at an early stage, saving time and costs.
The importance of complying with tribunal orders
The claimant's remaining claims for unpaid annual leave and unfair dismissal were also struck out or dismissed because she failed to comply with tribunal orders. Even if a claim has merit, tribunals will not allow it to proceed if the claimant ignores procedural requirements. This case highlights the risks of representing yourself without understanding the strict rules of employment tribunals.
Similar cases
Contract worker's disability discrimination claim struck out: no employer relationship pleaded
A contract worker's claim of disability discrimination against an employment business and a medical assessment company was struck out after the tribunal found he had not pleaded that either was his employer or principal under the Equality Act.
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.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.