About to be fired for gross misconduct...need advise

Parking_Eyerate

Sorry, but I really don’t think it’s as simple as that. Here’s just one example of the sort of factors that are considered and how decisions are reached: Kunicki v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I can’t post links but it should come up on google if you search the name.

OP, while I disagree with Genuineguy03 on his assessment of your chances had circumstances differed (things do not seem so black and white to me), I echo what he said about getting better, and I do wish you the best.

Genuineguy03

@parking eyerate

The claiments mental health issues, in the case you referenced, were found to be caused by the pressure and problems she endured in her job (alleged sexual and racial discrimination and bullying). And that her drinking was the primary culprit for the effect on her daily activities. Hence they found she was not disabled, just like the ET found that Raynor in Raynor V Turning point was not disabled (though later found to be disabled by EAT)

In DS383s case, there drinking is a result of his mental health conditions. And said mental health conditions are, based on what Ds383 has discribed, not connected to their job. So its his his mental health that effects his day to day activities, by causing him to drink.

Also in the case you referred to, the claiment didn't do her self any favours by refusing antidepressants, refusing the treatment her GP recommended and instead demanding other form of treatments. Also all I could find was the judgement on the preliminary hearing dated jan 2018 that mentioned a further hearing to decide if she was disabled or not. There was a date set for may 2018, but I can find no judgement published, nor any final judgement. So it maybe given how recent the hearings were, that the case has not been heard in full yet, or has gone to appeal. So I wouldn't personally rely on it as case law just yet

Parking_Eyerate

Hi genuineguy03

In paragraph 27 it states that “the claimiant’s case is that she is impaired by reason of depression and anxiety”. Despite years of mental health problems and alcohol problems the tribunal concluded that she was not disabled under the Equality Act. There is much more detailed information presented in that case than is available about the OP (OP I am not prying, just making a comparison), including expert medical opinion, and the tribunal found the Equality Act didn’t apply. We have no idea, for example, what the OP has said to his GP etc. So, while I am sure that the OP feels the way he says, there is, in my opinion, far too little information to conclude that the OP would be considered disabled under the Act and that his anxiety would definitely be found to be the trigger for getting drunk.

Your optimism is quite admirable but I really do think you have a fairly one-sided view of things and generalise that cases you like may work as a golden ticket, despite the consideration that specific facts of cases vary a great deal. In this instance it could be that a tribunal might find the OP to be disabled and might find that getting drunk was because of his disability, it is a (vague) possibility and I accept that, but in my opinion it is by no means certain and I think some of your comments would be more helpful if they were a bit more tempered (not just for OPs but for people that might search the forum and read threads for general advice).

Regarding the May hearing, I too looked and couldn’t find a decision but I think that it was more about sex and race discrimination claims (if you google there is a newspaper article) and since it was six months ago it suggests to me that she withdrew or settled (even had it gone to appeal I don’t see why the judgment wouldn’t have been published) so I don’t think the disability conclusion is likely to change.

Genuineguy03

Parking eyed

Paragraph 27 is under submissions. Meaning that is what the claiment claimed to be the case.

The tribunal didn't agree that it was see paragraph 40 under conculsions, as that where they make their judgement.

The Op stated that they drank as it helps lessen the effect of their Anxiety (as he said himself as a form of self medicating). So he drinks because it lessens the effect of his anxiety. So their drinking is a result of their anxiety and not a cause of it, like it was determined to be a cause in the kunicki case.

Yes the case may have been withdrawn. But all we can do is wait and see.

WhySoSad

I'm new to posting, but not to reading and not to this subject (personally).
One point I wanted to bring up - I didn't know that Beta blockers caused someone to appear more drunk? Do they?

Genuineguy03

Ignore first two paragraphs in my reply parking eyed. I miss read the first part of your post and thought you thought it was judgement under paragraph 27. Apologies.

Parking_Eyerate

No worries re first two paragraphs of earlier post, genuineguy03.

My point is what the OP says/feels to be the case is not necessarily the conclusion that experts and an employment tribunal would come to. A tribunal looking at the OP’s circumstances might also find that drinking was a cause of his anxiety (similarly to Kunicki). We simply don’t know what conclusion a tribunal would reach!

Genuineguy03

@whysosad

They can react. Guess it depends on dosage and how many units you drink. And if your large or small person.

Genuineguy03

Parking eyed

I agree the Raynor case is evidence of that ET said it weren't but EAT said it was. So

But just to clarify, that doesn't mean I was wrong either regarding when a condition amounts to a disability. Plus I wasn't recommending the OP go to tribunal either. I merely hinted if circumstances were different we maybe able to help. And that was jumped on as though it was blasphemy, and mob were out seeking to lynch me after that. So the thread just snowballed from there.

WhySoSad

but couldn't you say that about every single case.....'if the circumstances were different'? the most important thing being they're not.