University of Southampton and Dr D Holmes

Case Summary

This is a preliminary hearing on the issue of disability. The tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety from 3 November 2023 onwards, but not before. Any disability discrimination claims arising before that date were dismissed.

The tribunal found that although the claimant had a mental impairment, she was only disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 from 3 November 2023 onwards. Any discrimination claims arising before that date were therefore dismissed as they could not relate to a protected characteristic that did not yet apply.

• •Whether the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether the effect of the mental impairment was substantial
• •Whether the impairment was long-term at the material times

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Dr S Zahertar Respondents: University of Southampton (1) Dr D Holmes (2) RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Southampton (by video) On: 11 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Dawson Appearances For the Claimant: In person For the Respondents: Mr Wayman (Counsel) JUDGMENT ON DISABILITY 1. The claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety from (and including) 3 November 2023, but not before. 2. Any claim of disability discrimination (including any claim under sections 13, 15, 21 and 26 Equality Act 2010) in respect of a cause of action which arose before 3 November 2023 is dismissed. REASONS Introduction and overview 1. By a claim form presented on 5 September 2024 the claimant brought the following complaints; a. Unfair dismissal; b. Discrimination on the grounds of disability, race and sex c. Victimisation The Issues 2. The matter was listed for a hearing to determine whether at all times material to the claim the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression within the meaning of s.6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. 3. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Wayman confirmed that whilst he accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment, he did not accept that its effect was substantial or that it was long-term at the material times. Conduct of the Hearing Reasonable Adjustments 4. The claimant confirmed that she may need time to consider matters and I invited her to let me know if she needed a break. The evidence 5. I was provided with a bundle running to 193 (PDF) pages which included a disability impact statement at page 128 and a reply to the respondent’s position on disability at page 165. Except where otherwise stated, references to page numbers in this judgment are to the hearing bundle. 6. I heard evidence from the claimant and she was cross…