This article applies to England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has a separate tribunal system.
In brief: The Equality Act has two forms of discrimination unique to disability: discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. In both, two threshold questions often become central: were you a disabled person at the relevant time, and did the employer have the knowledge the Act requires. If either is disputed and decided against you, that claim may fail without the rest being considered. This guide explains those questions, the ones that follow, and which evidence relates to each. Other disability-related claims work differently.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
By Yerty | Based on the Equality Act 2010, the EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice, the statutory guidance on disability, the Judiciary's 2026 explainer videos, appellate case law and Yerty's reading of published tribunal decisions. Law checked 4 September 2026.
You brought a claim about what your employer did to you. Then the response arrived saying "it is not admitted that the claimant was disabled", or "the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known", and the case management order turned your story into a numbered list of questions you never thought you were arguing about. This guide explains why a disability discrimination case is built that way, and how to think about your own case in the same terms.
Important: This guide provides general information about employment law in England, Wales and Scotland. Yerty is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. It explains what the tribunal decides and why; it does not assess your case or draft your documents.
Breaking a Disability Claim into Its Parts
A disability discrimination claim feels like one thing: they treated me badly because of my disability. The tribunal does not decide it as one thing. A useful way to understand its decision is to break the case into five parts, each a separate question with its own facts, its own evidence and its own answer. This is Yerty's way of organising the questions the law asks, not an official procedure, but a list of issues will usually separate most of them explicitly.
| Part | The question | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Were you a disabled person under the Equality Act at the time? | The impairment, its effects, how long it lasted, the dates that matter |
| Knowledge | What did the employer know, or what should it have known, and when? | What you told them, what they saw, what they should have asked |
| Type of claim | Which kind of disability discrimination are you alleging? | Discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, or one of the general forms |
| Allegations | What, specifically, did they do or fail to do, and when? | Each act or omission, dated; each one is decided on its own |
| Remedy | If any of it succeeds, what are you owed? | Financial loss, injury to feelings, recommendations |
Not every disability claim needs every part, and depending on the specifics of your case some may matter more or less.
Thinking about your case this way, before you write anything, has two uses. It broadly reflects how tribunals reason, so the list of issues is less of a surprise. And it can show where evidence is thin: a case that is strong on what happened may still be weak on the date the employer first knew, or on whether the effects of a condition were long-term at the time. This guide takes the five parts in turn, and for each describes what the tribunal is asking, what it tends to look at, and what a claimant is generally expected to establish.
What Questions Does the Tribunal Have to Answer?
Thinking about your case as a decision map helps you prepare it in a way that reflects how tribunals think. This is a map, not a fixed running order: tribunals decide some questions at a preliminary hearing and others at the final hearing, can take them in a different sequence, and can dispose of a claim on one issue without deciding the others. But for a section 15 or adjustments claim, these are the questions that commonly arise. Who has to establish what differs from question to question, and each section below says.
| Question | What it is really asking | Evidence that usually matters |
|---|---|---|
| Were you disabled at the relevant time? | Section 6 and Schedule 1: impairment, substantial and long-term effect on day-to-day activities, judged at the dates of the treatment; special rules for some conditions | Your impact statement, GP and specialist evidence, treatment and duration evidence |
| What did the employer know, and when? | Actual or constructive knowledge of the disability (and, for adjustments, of the disadvantage) | Fit notes, occupational health reports, emails, absence and return-to-work meetings |
| Which claim is it, and what are its elements? | Section 15: unfavourable treatment; what caused it; whether that "something" arose from the disability. Adjustments: a PCP or feature; a substantial disadvantage; a step that could have avoided or reduced it | The list of issues; the specific acts complained of; what the disadvantage was |
| Does the remaining legal question resolve it? | Section 15: can the employer show objective justification. Adjustments: did the duty arise, and was there a step it was reasonable for the employer to have to take | Employer's evidence on aims, cost, practicality, effectiveness |
| Is the claim in time? | Section 123: 3 months less 1 day, or 6 months less 1 day for acts on or after 1 October 2026; conduct extending over a period; special rule for failures to act; Acas early conciliation extension; just and equitable discretion | Dates of each act; when an adjustment could reasonably have been expected; Acas dates |
| What remedy follows? | Financial loss, injury to feelings, recommendations | Loss evidence |
The next five sections take the five parts in turn: status, knowledge, type of claim, allegations and remedy.
Part 1: Are You Disabled Under the Law?
Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 says a person has a disability if they have "a physical or mental impairment" which "has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [their] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities". For most impairments the tribunal considers each element of that definition while looking at the overall effect rather than treating the elements in isolation, and a diagnosis does not by itself establish disability. There are exceptions: cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis are disabilities from diagnosis under Schedule 1, and there are special rules for certain certified sight impairments, severe disfigurement and progressive conditions.
The Judiciary's own 2026 explainer, How Tribunals decide if someone was disabled, walks through the test; our guides on anxiety and depression apply it to two common conditions. Recurring issues in disputed status cases include:
- Substantial means more than minor or trivial, not severe, and one affected activity is enough. The tribunal compares you with how you would be without the impairment, not with other people (Stedman v Haven Leisure [2025] EAT 82).
- Long-term means it has lasted or is likely to last 12 months, or for life; effects that come and go count if likely to recur.
- Treatment is not ignored, but its effect is set aside. Where ongoing treatment or corrective measures control the impairment, Schedule 1, paragraph 5 treats it as having a substantial effect if, without those measures, it would be likely to. Different considerations apply where treatment has permanently cured or removed the impairment.
- The date matters. Status is assessed at the time of each act complained of, so a tribunal can find that disability status began part-way through the relevant period. In Wolanska v DHL Services (a first-instance tribunal judgment, Birmingham, March 2025) the tribunal found the claimant disabled by anxiety from 1 January 2023, so her complaints about the period before that date could not proceed.
- Stress or anxiety can be a reaction rather than an impairment, but there is no rule. J v DLA Piper and Herry v Dudley show that symptoms described as stress or anxiety may sometimes be a reaction to adverse circumstances rather than evidence of a mental impairment. That distinction is fact-sensitive; a condition is not excluded because it arose from a workplace dispute.
One thing the burden-of-proof rule in our general discrimination guide does not do: it does not relieve you of establishing disability status if it is disputed. Section 136 has its own role in deciding whether the Act was contravened; where status is in dispute, the burden of establishing it generally rests with the claimant.
What Happens If the Employer Concedes Disability?
An employer can admit disability in its response, concede it in a case management order, or concede it on the day of a hearing listed to decide it. It can also concede only part: one impairment but not another, or disability only from a particular date. Whether disability is accepted is worth establishing early, because it changes what the case is about.
The section How We See This Play Out below gives the counts from our reading of published decisions, including how often a concession appeared.
What a concession does not do is concede the case. Accepting that you were disabled does not accept that the employer knew, that you were put at a substantial disadvantage, that the treatment arose from your disability, that the adjustment you wanted was reasonable, or that anything was unlawful. In Cunningham v BBC [2026] EAT 92, disability was not the issue on appeal; the employer's knowledge of it was, and the tribunal had at first found in the employer's favour on that separate question.
What Will You Be Asked to Produce?
Where status is disputed, case management orders commonly require evidence about the impairment and its effects, and it helps to know what each kind of evidence can establish. The tribunal considers the evidence as a whole.
- A disability impact statement. Your own account of what the impairment affects and how, at the relevant time: sleep, concentration, travel, dealing with people, the ordinary tasks of the job. In Stedman the EAT stressed that the tribunal must properly evaluate the claimant's own evidence of adverse effects and must not weigh what the claimant can still do against what is affected.
- Medical evidence. GP notes, fit notes, referrals, specialist letters and medication history can help on the impairment, its effects, treatment, duration and prognosis, and what the condition would likely do without treatment. A report that names the condition but says nothing about its effects on daily life leaves the effect question to the other evidence.
- Contemporaneous material. Occupational health reports, emails and absence documents can help on status, and they are also the evidence for what the employer knew and when.
This guide explains why the tribunal wants these. Preparing the impact statement itself is document guidance, which Yerty covers separately.
Part 2: Did the Employer Know?
This part matters for the two disability-specific claims. For section 15, the employer has a defence if it "did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know" that you had the disability (section 15(2)). For adjustments, Schedule 8, paragraph 20 goes further: no duty arises unless the employer knew or could reasonably have been expected to know both that you were disabled and that you were likely to be placed at the disadvantage in question.
Two kinds of knowledge count. Actual knowledge: someone told them, or they had a report. Constructive knowledge: they did not know but should have, because they had enough information to ask and asking would have revealed it. The questions a tribunal works through are:
- What did the employer actually know about the condition and its effects?
- Should those facts have prompted it to ask more?
- What would reasonable enquiries have revealed?
- When did it know, relative to each act complained of?
The employer does not need to have reached the legal conclusion that you are disabled. What it needs is actual or constructive knowledge of the facts that make up the disability: the impairment and its substantial, long-term effects (Gallop v Newport). The EHRC Employment Statutory Code says employers must do all they can reasonably be expected to do to find out whether a worker is disabled, and case law indicates that an employer is unlikely to avoid knowledge simply by not asking obvious questions, or by adopting an occupational health opinion without considering it. In Cunningham v BBC [2026] EAT 92, the BBC had been told in March 2023 that the claimant had type 2 diabetes causing fatigue, and had occupational health advice recommending changes to her shifts. The EAT held that what the BBC already knew, together with the reasonable enquiries it should have made, including asking whether the condition was long-term, meant it could not rely on lack of knowledge for the relevant period. Her adjustments claim was sent back to be decided; her section 15 claim still failed, because the tribunal found the broadcasting error was not caused by her diabetes.
The law makes these separate questions: establishing disability does not establish employer knowledge. Our reading of published decisions, below, illustrates the same distinction.
Part 3: What Type of Disability Claim Is It?
Disability can be the characteristic in the four general forms of discrimination in the Equality Act 2010, and there are two further forms that exist only for disability. Each has its own test, and the table shows which of the earlier parts each one depends on.
| Type of claim | The core question | Needs you to be disabled? | Employer knowledge defence? | What the employer can argue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct discrimination, s.13 | Were you treated less favourably than someone without a disability in the same circumstances, because of disability (yours, perceived, or someone else's)? | Not necessarily: actual, perceived or associative disability can found the claim | No statutory defence, but the reason for the treatment is the whole question | The characteristic played no part |
| Discrimination arising from disability, s.15 | Were you treated unfavourably because of something that arose from your disability? | Yes | Yes, s.15(2) | Justification: a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim |
| Failure to make reasonable adjustments, ss.20–21 | Did a working practice, physical feature or missing aid put you at a substantial disadvantage, and was a reasonable step not taken? | Yes | Yes, Sch 8 para 20: of the disability and the likely disadvantage | The duty did not arise, or no reasonable step was available |
| Indirect discrimination, s.19 (and s.19A) | Did a policy applied to everyone disadvantage disabled people as a group, and you? (s.19A: or you, even if not disabled, in substantively the same way) | For s.19 yes; for s.19A no, the claimant must not share the characteristic | No | Justification |
| Harassment, s.26 | Was there unwanted conduct related to disability that violated your dignity or created a hostile environment? | No: "related to" is enough | No | The conduct was not related to disability, or did not have the prohibited purpose or effect; for effect, the tribunal considers your perception, the circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect |
| Victimisation, s.27 | Were you treated badly because you complained about discrimination or supported someone who did? | No | No | No protected act; the treatment was for another reason |
The two disability-specific claims are where status and knowledge do most of their work, and the same events can support both, so they get the detail here. Our general discrimination guide covers the other four.
Section 15, discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal asks, in this order:
- Was there unfavourable treatment?
- What was the reason for it, the "something" (absence, an error, reduced output, a request for different hours)? That is a question about what was in the decision-maker's mind.
- Did that "something" arise in consequence of your disability?
- If so, can the employer show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?
The third question is an objective one, the link can have more than one step, and the employer's motive is irrelevant to it (Pnaiser v NHS England; City of York Council v Grosset; Shah v Home Office [2026] EAT 103). Shah shows how the two questions come apart: the tribunal had accepted that the claimant asked for a guaranteed interview because he was disabled, then dismissed the claim because the employer investigated him out of a mistaken belief that he was being dishonest. The EAT held that was the wrong question. The employer's reason for acting was the "something"; whether that something arose from disability had already been answered; the case went back only on justification. The employer also does not need to have known that the "something" arose from your disability; it needs the knowledge of the disability itself that section 15(2) requires (Grosset). If the first three are established, the employer can still succeed on the fourth, and at that stage justification may become decisive. Whether the employer considered adjustments is not a separate element, but it is relevant to proportionality. Cunningham is an example of a section 15 claim failing on causation, not justification.
Reasonable adjustments. Five questions (Environment Agency v Rowan, restated in Cunningham):
- What provision, criterion or practice, physical feature or missing auxiliary aid is relied on?
- What substantial disadvantage did it cause you compared with people who are not disabled?
- Did the employer know, or should it have known, of the disability and the likely disadvantage?
- What step could have avoided or reduced that disadvantage?
- Was it reasonable for the employer to have to take that step, having regard to how effective it would have been, its cost, its practicality and the employer's resources?
There is no justification defence here; the question is whether the duty arose and whether a reasonable step was not taken. A step can be reasonable if it would reduce the disadvantage or has a real prospect of doing so; it does not have to remove it. You do not have to have identified the perfect adjustment at the time, since the duty is the employer's, but as the case is clarified a claimant is expected to identify the step the employer should reasonably have taken and to point to some evidence that it was potentially reasonable, so the employer knows the case it has to meet and the tribunal knows the case it has to decide. There is no requirement to have identified that adjustment to the employer at the time. The tribunal is not asking whether the adjustment you wanted sounded helpful; it is deciding whether the law required the employer to take a reasonable step against a precisely identified disadvantage.
Part 4: What Are Your Allegations?
Whatever type of claim it is, the tribunal generally decides it act by act. The list of issues usually turns an account into numbered allegations: the warning on 3 March; the refusal of the phased return; the failure to move you off the late shift. Each is treated as a separate question. The tribunal considers whether it happened as described, whether it meets the test for the type of claim it is pleaded under, whether the employer's answer succeeds, and whether it is in time. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others, even where they form part of the same overall workplace dispute.
Time is generally considered allegation by allegation too. The limit for presenting a claim is 3 months less 1 day from each act, or 6 months less 1 day for acts on or after 1 October 2026, extended by Acas early conciliation. Conduct extending over a period is treated as done at the end of the period, but that does not turn every bad experience in one job into a single continuing act. For an adjustment the employer simply never made, section 123 has a special rule: time can run from when the employer could reasonably have been expected to make it. The tribunal has a broad discretion to extend an Equality Act time limit where it considers that just and equitable. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances, but an extension is not automatic and the claimant has to persuade the tribunal to exercise it. The exact deadline can be more complicated than adding three or six months, because early conciliation changes the calculation. Our guide on missing the tribunal deadline covers the discretion.
Thinking about the case allegation by allegation means, for each one: the date, what happened, which type of claim it falls under, which evidence relates to it, and what the employer may say in response. That is broadly the shape a list of issues takes, and the shape a judgment tends to follow.
Part 5: What Can You Get If You Win?
The remedy rules are the same as for any discrimination claim: a declaration, compensation for financial loss, an award for injury to feelings in the Vento bands, interest, and in some cases a recommendation. Disability has no separate bands. Our general discrimination guide covers remedy, and our data-led guide to disability discrimination outcomes at tribunal shows what published decisions have awarded.
How We See This Play Out
Yerty data. We read 510 published Employment Tribunal decision documents from cases pleading disability discrimination, chosen to cover preliminary, final and short procedural judgments across years and lengths, each read in full from the source PDF and coded by hand. The unit is the document, not the case; a case can contribute more than one document, and the sample over-represents reasoned judgments by design. These are counts within that sample. They are not rates for all tribunal cases, and settled or withdrawn claims never appear in published decisions.
Was disability status contested, and what happened to it? Of the 166 documents in which status was addressed:
| Outcome | Share |
|---|---|
| Employer conceded status, in whole or in part | 41% |
| Tribunal decided it | 48% |
| Document recited a finding made at an earlier hearing | 8% |
| Deferred or unclear | 4% |
Where the tribunal decided it (79 documents): established in 44%, not established in 43%, and mixed, one impairment accepted and another not, in 13%.
Where was it dealt with? Concessions appeared overwhelmingly in final-hearing judgments (82% of the 68); tribunal decisions on status appeared mostly in preliminary-hearing judgments (76% of the 79). That is the pattern the law would predict: status is listed early where disputed, and conceded late where it is not worth fighting.
Why did status fail? Of the 19 not-established documents that stated a reason: adverse effect on day-to-day activities not shown, 37%; long-term not shown, 26%; substantial effect not shown, 16%; both substantial and long-term, 5%; no impairment because the condition was a reaction to circumstances, 16%. None turned on the absence of a diagnosis.
Was employer knowledge in issue? Knowledge was a live issue in 13% of the 510 documents. Of those, 88% were final-hearing judgments.
Anxiety. Anxiety was among the impairments relied on in 10% of the 510 documents, and in 28% of the 189 that named any relied-on impairment. Where those documents addressed status (49), the employer had conceded in 37%, the tribunal decided in 55%, and 8% recited an earlier finding.
Read as illustration rather than measurement, the table shows the shape the law describes: status is a question that is often conceded rather than decided, and when it is decided that tends to happen at a preliminary hearing; knowledge is a separate question that the sample shows being fought at final hearings; and where status fails, it fails on the effect and duration conditions far more often than on whether there was a diagnosis. Full method, sampling frame and definitions are in our findings piece.
Where and When Are These Parts Decided?
| Part | Where it may be dealt with | Key point |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Preliminary or final hearing | Can be determined separately where the tribunal lists it as a preliminary issue |
| Knowledge | Often the final hearing, but this is case management | Can remain live even after status is determined |
| Type of claim | The pleadings, then case management and the list of issues | The pleaded claim sets the legal scope; the list of issues identifies the questions the tribunal has agreed or directed itself to decide. A genuinely new claim may need permission to amend; clarifying an existing one is a different question (Khakimov v Amova Asset Management UK Ltd [2026] EAT 47) |
| Allegations | Usually the final hearing; time points can be preliminary | Depends on case management |
| Remedy | The same hearing or a separate remedy hearing | Only needed where liability succeeds |
Disputed disability status is often listed for a preliminary hearing, because resolving it can narrow or end the case. Under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, a preliminary hearing that only deals with case management is ordinarily private, but the part of a preliminary hearing that determines a substantive preliminary issue such as disability status is ordinarily public, subject to any privacy order. That is case management, not a rule about where status must be decided: tribunals can leave status to the final hearing, and knowledge may remain for the final hearing even where status has been decided earlier. Powell-Taitt v M Power (a first-instance judgment, London South, August 2025) is an example: the tribunal found the claimant disabled at a preliminary hearing and expressly left knowledge to the final hearing. If you receive a notice of preliminary hearing, read what it is listed to decide; the orders about impact statements and medical evidence follow from that.
What This Means for You
The decision map above can help make sense of what each item in a list of issues is asking; the tribunal may organise or decide those issues in a different order. Where status is disputed, your evidence about the impairment, its effects, its duration and the relevant dates becomes central; this commonly includes an impact statement and medical material. Where status is conceded, knowledge may still be in issue: the date the employer says it first knew, and what it had in front of it before then, are often where the argument lies. For section 15, the "something" and how it arose from the disability come before justification; for adjustments, the disadvantage and the step are the points on which most of the analysis turns. Every act's date matters against the time limit, because a claim can succeed on later acts and fail on earlier ones. Our ET1 guide covers starting the claim; for complex cases, you may still want to speak with a solicitor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the burden of proof shift to my employer in a disability case?
Where disability status is disputed, the burden of establishing that the section 6 definition was met generally rests with the claimant; section 136 does not shift that. Section 136 then has its own role in the tribunal's decision on whether the Act was contravened: if there are facts from which it could conclude there was discrimination, the employer must show there was not.
If my employer admits I am disabled, have I won?
No. A concession of disability settles only that question, and sometimes only for part of the period or one impairment. The employer can still argue it did not know, that the treatment was justified, that there was no substantial disadvantage, or that the adjustment was not reasonable.
What is a disability impact statement for?
It is your account, in your own words, of what the impairment affects and how at the time of the acts complained of. Tribunals use it alongside medical evidence to decide whether the effect was substantial and long-term. It is not a place for legal argument or for the story of the dispute.
Does my employer have to know I am disabled for every disability claim?
No. The statutory knowledge defence applies to discrimination arising from disability and to reasonable adjustments claims. Direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation do not have the same defence, and victimisation does not require you to be disabled at all. That does not make the employer's awareness irrelevant elsewhere: a direct discrimination claim still needs treatment because of disability, actual or perceived, so what the employer knew or perceived goes to causation.
Can I be found disabled for part of the period only?
Yes. Disability is assessed at the relevant time, so a tribunal can find that the statutory definition was met from one date but not earlier, and dismiss complaints about acts before that date.
Is disability status always decided at a preliminary hearing?
No. It is often listed for one where disputed, because a decision can narrow the case, but tribunals can leave it to the final hearing. Employer knowledge may remain for the final hearing even where status has been decided earlier.
What is the difference between section 15 and reasonable adjustments?
Section 15 is about being treated unfavourably because of something that arose from your disability, and the employer's answer, once the elements are established, is objective justification. Adjustments is about the employer failing to take a reasonable step to avoid or reduce a disadvantage a working practice caused you; there is no justification defence, and the question is whether the duty arose and a reasonable step was not taken. The same events can support both, so they may be pleaded together.
Sources
- Equality Act 2010, sections 6, 13, 15, 19, 19A, 20, 21, 26, 27, 123, 136; Schedule 1; Schedule 8 paragraph 20: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
- Equality and Human Rights Commission, Employment Statutory Code of Practice (2011), paragraphs 5.14, 5.15 and 6.19: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/employment-statutory-code-practice
- "Employment Tribunal (E&W) Video 6: How Tribunals decide if someone was disabled", Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 6 March 2026: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-tribunal-ew-video-6-how-tribunals-decide-if-someone-was-disabled/
- "Employment Tribunal Explainer Videos" (series list including Videos 7 and 8 on adjustments and section 15), Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Employment-Tribunal-Explainer-Videos.pdf
- Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/eat/2025/82; commentary: Hempsons
- Cunningham v BBC [2026] EAT 92, 16 June 2026: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions?tribunal_decision_categories=disability-discrimination; commentary: Farrer & Co: https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/disability-discrimination-and-employer-knowledge-of-disability/; BDBF: https://www.bdbf.co.uk/employer-had-enough-information-to-know-that-an-employee-with-type-2-diabetes-was-disabled/
- Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1583.html
- Shah v Home Office [2026] EAT 103, 13 July 2026: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54aa0a2467584757371da2/Mr_M_Shah_v_Home_Office__2026__EAT_103.pdf; City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105; Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170; Khakimov v Amova Asset Management UK Ltd [2026] EAT 47, 27 March 2026, commentary: Solicitors Journal: https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/khakimov-v-amova-asset-management-eat-clarifies-section-15-causation-and-the-limits-of-list-of-issues-re-formulation
- Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] IRLR 20
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] UKEAT/0100/16: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2016/0100_16_1612.html; J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] UKEAT/0263/09
- Wolanska v DHL Services Ltd, ET 6009505/2024, first-instance judgment 12 March 2025 (illustration, not authority): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6848114bddc1cbd280bcb873/Miss_A_Wolanska_v_DHL_Services_Ltd_-_6009505.2024_-_Judgement.pdf
- Powell-Taitt v M Power Ltd, ET 2304361/2024, first-instance judgment 28 August 2025 (illustration, not authority): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b6fbb4b0a373a01819fd44/Mr_Isaac_Powell_Taitt_v_M_Power_Limited_2304361-2024_Judgment_28-08-2025.pdf
- Yerty reading of 510 published Employment Tribunal decisions in cases pleading disability discrimination; sampling frame, stratification, unit of analysis, coding definitions and validation: /tribunal-data/findings/how-common-is-anxiety-related-discrimination