Manchester City Council

Case Summary

The tribunal dismissed the claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 as it was not well-founded, and found no evidence of discrimination against the claimant.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, and therefore the discrimination claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded.

• •unfavourable treatment based on disability
• •reason for decision

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss L Hyland Respondent: Manchester City Council HELD AT: Manchester (the claimant and her representative attending by CVP) ON: 2 – 4 December 2024 In chambers: 20 May 2025 BEFORE: Employment Judge Porter Ms C Nield REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Miss N Hyland, the claimant’s sister Respondent: Ms I Baylis, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that: 1. The claims under s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well-founded and are hereby dismissed. 2. The claim under s13 Equality Act 2010 is not well-founded and is hereby dismissed. REASONS 2 Issues to be determined 1. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the respondent indicated that the List of Issues for determination by the tribunal was as set out in the Case Management Order made by EJ Ross on 20 May 2024 (see Appendix 1). 2. The claimant asserted that the List of Issues was incorrect as the claimant relied on the mental impairment of an anxiety disorder and non- organic psychosis. After a short break to take instructions, counsel for the respondent confirmed that the respondent did concede that the claimant was, at the relevant time, a disabled person with the mental impairments of anxiety disorder and non-organic psychosis. The respondent had no objection to the amendment of the List of Issues to reflect that. 3. The claimant asserted that she intended to argue that the discriminatory conduct had been going on for 6 or 7 years and that this was the reason for the claimant’s relapses into poor health and non-attendance. Counsel for the respondent asserted that: 3.1 The cause of the claimant’s disability was not relevant to the determination of the issues; 3.2 There were only two issues as had been identified in the List of Issues; and 3.3 the claimant would need to seek…