Miss D. Lakin v Torrent Trackside Ltd — 2023

Miss D. Lakin began work as a Hire Controller in June 2019 after previously declining an offer because of back pain linked to degenerative disc disease. The tribunal found the respondent reasonably treated that earlier problem as temporary when she started employment, and it held that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of her disability until after she went off sick on 13 January 2021 with neck and back pain. Occupational health later confirmed that her degenerative disc disease was a lifelong condition and that she remained unfit for work.

The reasonable adjustments claims failed. For the period October 2020 to January 2021, the tribunal found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability or of the pleaded disadvantages arising from home working. It also found that the claimant had the option to work from the office, that the evidence did not support her account that she had pressed for the equipment she said she needed, and that the office option would in any event have removed the alleged disadvantage. For the later dismissal-stage allegations, the tribunal accepted that disability-related absence put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but held that reduced hours, reduced workload, a phased return, altered sickness triggers, disregarding absence, or delaying dismissal would not have removed the disadvantage because she was unfit for any work at the time.

The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim arising from disability. It accepted that the respondent had legitimate aims, including medical fitness, attendance and workforce planning, but held that the October 2021 dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and was not proportionate at that stage. The tribunal attached weight to the fact that the claimant was not warned that dismissal was being considered, that a prepared script had already moved from no alternative roles to dismissal, and that the appeal was offered to a manager who had already been involved in the process. It also noted that the respondent did not wait for delayed MRI results or a further occupational health review before dismissing.

The tribunal further found that, had the respondent waited for the MRI results, obtained a further occupational health review and given proper warning and consultation, the claimant could fairly have been dismissed by the end of November 2021. No remedy was quantified in the liability judgment, and the parties were given 14 days to try to agree remedy or seek a further remedy hearing.