Frettens Banner Image

Blog

Services
People
News and Events
Other
Blogs

'Paranoid delusions' were not a disability according to tribunal

  • Posted
Paranoid delusions were not a disability according to tribunal

Chris Dobbs looks at a recent case where it was found that paranoid delusions did not come under the definition of a disability.

Chris outlines the ins and outs of the case, discussing the key takeaways for employers.

Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd

In Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd the Court of Appeal (CA) has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that paranoid delusions were not a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Sullivan was employed as a senior sales executive and right from the beginning of his employment he clashed with the company’s chief executive.

This was as a result of Mr Sullivan’s poor timekeeping, attendance and record-keeping.

Psychological issues effecting work

Things then deteriorated following a short relationship with a Ukrainian woman, when Mr Sullivan became convinced he was being monitored by a Russian gang connected to her.

The company became aware of Mr Sullivan’s psychological issues by July 2013 and saw that he suffered from shaking and sweating and that he seemed extremely paranoid.

He said he could not sleep and his timekeeping and attendance became even worse.

Paranoia subsiding over time

However, by September 2013, when Mr Sullivan went on a business trip with the chief executive, he was performing better and it seemed his condition had improved.

In early 2014 both his doctor and psychologist noted the improvement.

Mr Sullivan said he still thought about the Russian gang monitoring him but managed to ignore the thoughts and get in with his life.

Continued poor performance at work & dismissal

Over the next three years or so Mr Sullivan’s timekeeping and attendance were still poor, but he did not comment about the Russian gang to the company.

The chief executive eventually lost patience over Mr Sullivan’s poor performance and dismissed him in September 2017.

Disability discrimination claim

Mr Sullivan brought a claim for disability discrimination, amongst others, and the employment tribunal had to determine if he was disabled as a preliminary issue. They held he was not. 

Are paranoid delusions considered a disability?

They found that the paranoid delusions did have a substantial adverse effect on Mr Sullivan in 2013, but this effect did not last beyond that September of that year.

The effect did re-establish itself in April to July 2017, however it was not likely to last 12 months, which is required (unless a condition is terminal) to amount to a disability.

They also found that Mr Sullivan was stressed about a pay issue he was having with the company as well and his condition would have improved once this had been sorted out.

What did the Employment Appeal Tribunal find?

Mr Sullivan appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), but his appeal was unsuccessful.

The EAT held the employment tribunal was entitled to find that, even though Mr Sullivan’s paranoid delusions continued throughout the four years, the substantial adverse impact did not. He appealed further to the CA.

What did the competition appeal tribunal find?

The CA dismissed Mr Sullivan’s appeal.

It held, agreeing with the EAT, that the employment tribunal was entitled to come to the conclusion it did and had provided adequate reasoning in their judgment.

While it was true that the fact that the substantial adverse effect had recurred several times might strongly suggest that a further episode was something that could well happen, it would not always be the case.

Here, the employment tribunal had found that the effect in 2017 had been triggered by a discussion about remuneration and it was unlikely to recur. That was a conclusion open to them based on the facts in front of her.

An Employment Solicitor’s View

Chris Dobbs said: “This case is another demonstration of how difficult it can be for claimants to succeed with a disability discrimination claim.

They can often even fall at the first hurdle of establishing they had a disability.”

What should employers take away from this?

Chris continues: “For employers, it is a lesson to always look to see if you can challenge whether someone has a disability.

In particular looking at the effect the condition they are suffering from has on their normal day to day activities and how long the effect will last.

Obtaining an occupational health or medical report is often vital in these circumstances and we always encourage employers to do so when facing the issue of an employee saying they are disabled.”

Employment law advice and guidance: Stay up to date

Throughout the pandemic, our team of bright lawyers have been publishing guidance on the ever-changing regulations. The timely updates are published on our website in plain English and shared on our social media channels.

To be the first to hear about any updates, you can register for our free newsletter (and choose the topics you want to hear about) here.

Employment solicitors in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Ringwood

At Frettens, we offer a free initial appointment for all new clients. This usually takes place over a coffee with one of our bright lawyers at our modern, conveniently located offices, but can also be over the phone or video call.

If you’d like to speak with one of our bright, friendly team, you can fill in the form on this page or give us a call on 01202 499255.

The content of this article, blog or video is not intended as specific legal advice. For tailored assistance, please contact a member of our team.

Comments

    home