I Gray and Greywalls LLP

Case Summary

This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The claimant, a hotel Duty Manager, asserted she was disabled by reason of stress, anxiety, and insomnia arising from workplace treatment. The tribunal found that the claimant's mental health symptoms did not have a substantial or long-term adverse effect on her normal day to day activities at the relevant time.

The tribunal found that although the claimant experienced stress at work, the stress did not have an effect on her normal day to day activities which was either substantially adverse or long term at the relevant time. The claimant was not prescribed medication or medical treatment for her mental health, was off sick for only a few days, and the evidence did not establish a substantial and long-term adverse effect as required by the Equality Act 2010.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time (31 May to 25 July 2025)
• •Whether claimant had a mental impairment (stress, anxiety, insomnia)
• •Whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities
• •Whether the substantial adverse effect was long term

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001922/2025 Held in Edinburgh on 20 April 2026 Employment Judge M Sutherland Pallabi Halder Claimant, In person Ian Gray First Respondent Represented by: James Boyd, Counsel Instructed by: Taylor Wessing LLP Greywalls LLP Second Respondent Represented by: James Boyd, Counsel Instructed by: Taylor Wessing LLP JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. REASONS 1. An open preliminary hearing was arranged to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time. The claimant appeared on her own behalf; the respondent had professional representation. The hearing was held remotely by CVP. 2. At case management the tribunal noted complaints of race discrimination and disability discrimination. The claim form made no mention of disability discrimination and this was first mentioned in the claimant’s agenda. It was not clear what acts were relied upon in asserting disability discrimination and 8001922/2025 Page 2 an application to amend may require to be determined in due course. Parties agreed that the issue of disability status could nevertheless be determined today. 3. The claimant asserts that she was disabled at the relevant time by reason of the mental impairment of stress, anxiety and insomnia. Notwithstanding reference to IBS in her impact statement the claimant confirmed that she did not rely upon this condition in asserting disability status. This position was consistent with her prior statement in corresponde…