It seems to me that the disability and religion claims were rejected because they both involved indirect intersectional discrimination or discrimination on the basis of two protected characteristics instead of indirect discrimination on the basis of a single protected characteristic. Per the Tribunal, such dual discrimination claims are't prohibited by the Equality Act.
pp 45-46 of the judgment deal with those claims
186.1 the Act does not contain any enforceable provisions relating to
discrimination on the basis of a combination of two or more protected
characteristics. There are provisions under section 14 of the Act that relate
to combined direct discrimination only (not to combined indirect
discrimination, harassment or any other complaints under the Act),
however these have never been brought into force;
. . . .
The claimant’s representative . . . clarified that her indirect discrimination complaint related to female Muslims only. . . .
the claimant’s indirect discrimination complaint relating to disability was
pleaded on the basis of women who experienced PTSD as a result of male
sexual violence, rather than individuals (both male and female) who
experienced PTSD as a result of male sexual violence.
186.5 we would have concluded that the claimant’s complaints of indirect
discrimination in relation to religious belief and in relation to disability
amount to complaints of combined indirect discrimination, that are not
protected under the Act. . . .
186.6 section 14 of the Act is not in force. However, it is clear from the drafting
of section 14 of the Act that Parliament intended that complaints of
combined discrimination would (when in force) be limited to those of
combined direct discrimination only. . . .
186.7 in addition, the Explanatory Notes to the Act state at paragraph 68:
“68.Previous legislation only allowed for claims alleging discrimination
because of a single protected characteristic. This section allows those who
have experienced less favourable treatment because of a combination of
two relevant protected characteristics to bring a direct discrimination claim,
such as where the single-strand approach may not succeed.”
The ET isn't saying that there was no harm or indirect discrimination, they're saying that the Equality Act doesn't cover combined indirect discrimination claims. If Faye had shown discrimination to both male and female Muslims (i.e., religion only) or both male and female PTSD victims who had been subject to male violence (i.e., disability only), the Tribunal might have found for her on those claims. They didn't rule on those questions because the Tribunal found that, as a matter of law, Faye's combined claims weren't covered.
I was disappointed with that aspect of the judgment but I don't know if the ET was correct regarding combined claims under the Equality Act.