An employment tribunal in Belfast has dismissed all claims brought by Mary Erwin against her former employer, Rutledge Training Ltd, finding that she was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time. The panel, presided over by Employment Judge Browne with members Mr D Walls and Mr R McKnight, issued its judgment on 23 July 2026 following a hearing held on 3, 4 and 5 December 2024.

Erwin, who had been employed by Rutledge Training Ltd as a Retail/Stores Tutor Assessor from March 2022, brought claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal. She represented herself throughout the proceedings. The respondent was represented by Ms T Eisen.

The tribunal found that Erwin had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that she met the statutory definition of a disabled person. Central to the case was a dispute over what physical information Erwin had disclosed to the respondent's HR Manager, Catriona Reid, before and during her employment. When completing induction documents in April 2022, Erwin described a neck injury sustained during a badminton match in 2012, stating that it was "under control", was not visible, and did not affect her ability to work. The only limitation she identified was an inability to perform throwing movements, which her role did not require.

Erwin later contended she had verbally disclosed extensive physical difficulties to Reid at the outset of employment. The tribunal found no written record to support this, and Reid denied any such conversation had taken place. The tribunal found that Erwin's written disclosure had consciously minimised her condition and omitted information she later relied upon in bringing her claims.

By August 2022, around four months into her employment, Erwin emailed her managers to raise workload concerns and linked her four-day working week to a need to avoid putting stress on her neck. The tribunal noted this was the first written reference to any connection between her physical condition and her work. Managers responded within forty minutes, offering support and proposing to review her caseload. The tribunal found this response was prompt and practical.

Erwin was diagnosed with osteoarthritis by a rheumatology consultant in December 2022, but did not bring this to the attention of her employer. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon had noted in October 2022 that her bilateral forefoot pain was due to arthritic change, but no medical professional provided a witness statement confirming her condition constituted a disability under the 1995 Act. The tribunal found that no professional medical opinion or diagnosis of disability was provided to the respondent at any stage before legal proceedings were issued.

On the question of reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent had taken a range of practical steps to support Erwin, including redistributing her allocated files to other staff, accompanying her on student recruitment, and offering to reduce her working hours. When asked at a return-to-work interview in May 2023 whether she required any reasonable adjustments, Erwin stated she did not. The tribunal found the respondent's conduct was consistent with what would constitute reasonable adjustments, even though it did not accept it was legally required to make them.

Erwin resigned by email on 17 July 2023, stating only that she had been offered another job. She had applied for that role on 18 June 2023, four days before a meeting at which the possibility of reducing her hours was raised. The tribunal found the evidence did not support her claim that the respondent had unilaterally decided to cut her hours without consulting her, and that this could not be treated as a genuine reason for her resignation. All complaints, including those of constructive unfair dismissal, harassment and victimisation, were dismissed in their entirety.