The Claimant was dismissed after the Respondent said her performance had not met the required standards. The Claimant brought a claim in the ET claiming that she was disabled during the period of January to March 2020 and that in their treatment of her, the Respondent discriminated against her under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 and failed to make reasonable adjustments. She also claimed that her dismissal was an act of victimisation because she had asked for reasonable adjustments which the Respondent were unwilling to deal with. The ET rejected her case that she was disabled for the purposes of the EqA because, on the evidence, she had not established that as at March 2020 her impairment was likely to last 12 months. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that (i) the EJ had failed to consider whether the impairment was likely to recur and (ii) the EJ had failed to consider whether, but for measures taken, the impairment would have continued to have a substantial adverse effect on her.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Although these two issues were not addressed by the EJ, there was no proper evidential basis for any findings to have been made about them which would have assisted the Claimant.