The Claimant, who was employed as a technical officer, brought claims limited to age and sex discrimination. His claim was then the subject of extensive case management and four preliminary hearings, which identified a disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination claims. The ET dismissed all the claims for age and disability discrimination arising from three incidents in April 2020. The ET found that the Claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that the Respondent did not have the requisite knowledge of the Claimant’s disability in any event. Regarding the incidents relied upon, the ET found that (i) the Claimant's case had not been made out on the facts namely there was no requirement that the Claimant work in the crematorium and/or the office and no disadvantage when he was working there, and (ii) no PCP was applied to the Claimant regarding the requirement to work at the crematorium and/or the office regarding the indirect disability discrimination claim, and no such PCP was applied regarding the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The ET also decided that the claims were out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had not erred in law in finding that the Claimant’s description of his disability namely asthma/bronchitis was wholly inconsistent with his medical records and the Occupational Health report in May 2020. There was no formal diagnosis of asthma other than a note in the Claimant’s medical records that he was suspected of having asthma in November 2020, which was after the date of the alleged discrimination. Further, the ET had permissibly found that from 2015 to 2020 references in the Claimant’s medical records to “chest infection”, “flu-like illness” and “chronic cough” were conditions which had been treated with antibiotics and had led to the Claimant’s recovery. The medical records, which had not been before the Judge at the sift stage, supported that conclusion. The EAT also dismissed the appeal on 5 other grounds.