The selected decisions illustrate disability status, employer knowledge, absence, adjustments, capability, dismissal and holiday pay across different facts and outcomes.
Ms L Sykes v Nails Inc, case 1801697/2016
Outcome: The section 15 claim succeeded. The reasonable-adjustments complaint was withdrawn; the tribunal awarded injury-to-feelings compensation and dealt separately with remaining remedy.
Safe lesson: Past disability-related absence can be the 'something arising' for section 15, but justification is decided on the evidence and proportionality in the individual case.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. The judgment did not decide a reasonable-adjustments claim and is not clinical evidence about FND or non-epileptic seizures.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Miss L Hayward v Medivet Group Ltd, case 3200671/2018
Outcome: At a preliminary hearing the claimant was found to satisfy the Equality Act disability definition at the relevant time.
Safe lesson: Fluctuating effects can be assessed under the statutory disability definition; the analysis concerns the person's actual effects, not an automatic rule for an FND diagnosis.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. It was a disability-status determination, not a ruling that every person with FND is disabled or that the substantive discrimination claims succeeded.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Miss C Friend v MHS Homes Ltd, case 2302233/2022
Outcome: Direct discrimination and unfair-dismissal complaints failed. Section 15 complaints, including in relation to dismissal, reasonable-adjustments complaints and harassment succeeded in the respects recorded by the judgment; the wages complaint failed.
Safe lesson: The same dismissal can be found fair under the Employment Rights Act test yet discriminatory under the separate Equality Act section 15 test; adjustment and communication failures must be analysed issue by issue.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. Mixed findings must stay visible. The judgment does not mean every adjustment was required or every capability dismissal involving FND is discriminatory.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Mr C Thompson v Ainscough Ltd, case 2411006/2023
Outcome: The preliminary issue was decided in favour of disability status at the relevant time despite the formal diagnosis being obtained later.
Safe lesson: A later diagnosis does not by itself prevent a tribunal from finding that the statutory effects existed at the relevant earlier time; evidence of effects still matters.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. This preliminary decision did not determine the merits or final outcome of all substantive discrimination complaints.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Mr R Neeves v BSH Home Appliances Ltd, case 3305177/2022
Outcome: The tribunal dismissed the disability-discrimination and unfair-dismissal complaints. Its findings included employer knowledge, but knowledge alone did not establish the substantive claims.
Safe lesson: Employer knowledge is only one element: a claimant must still establish the requirements of the particular cause of action, and an employer may still establish a defence or justification.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. The unsuccessful result does not show that FND is outside disability law or that employer knowledge is unimportant; it reflects the tribunal's findings on the pleaded issues.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Mr L A Donaldson v The Nail and Beauty Zone Ltd, case 4106810/2024
Outcome: The tribunal found an unlawful deduction and ordered payment of accrued holiday pay. It did not determine a disability-discrimination complaint.
Safe lesson: Sickness absence does not automatically extinguish statutory holiday entitlement, but accrual, carry-over and payment depend on the applicable rules and employment facts.
Limits: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding. This is a Great Britain wages/holiday-pay decision, not authority that treatment was disability discrimination, not Northern Ireland authority and not a holiday-pay calculator.
Status: First-instance, fact-specific and non-binding.
Read the official judgment
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: Great Britain
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Legal status: decided
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.
- Sykes v Nails Inc — Ms L Sykes v Nails Inc, Employment Tribunal, case 1801697/2016, judgment 12 April 2017.
- Hayward v Medivet — Miss L Hayward v Medivet Group Ltd, Employment Tribunal, case 3200671/2018, judgment 14 November 2018.
- Friend v MHS Homes — Miss C Friend v MHS Homes Ltd, Employment Tribunal, case 2302233/2022, judgment 28 January 2025.
- Thompson v Ainscough — Mr C Thompson v Ainscough Ltd, Employment Tribunal, case 2411006/2023, preliminary judgment 4 July 2024.
- Neeves v BSH — Mr R Neeves v BSH Home Appliances Ltd, Employment Tribunal, case 3305177/2022, judgment 11 September 2023.
- Donaldson v Nail and Beauty Zone — Mr L A Donaldson v The Nail and Beauty Zone Ltd, Employment Tribunal (Scotland), case 4106810/2024, judgment 3 February 2025.