Ms G Crew (counsel) For the v Mr R Santy (solicitor) — 2020

Mr Rumbold worked for Jaguar Land Rover from 1999 until his dismissal on 7 December 2018. The tribunal accepted that he had avascular necrosis in his left hip and was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. After a long sickness absence in 2018 he returned to work through the respondent's Restricted Worker Process and trial roles, with adjustments considered around seating, walking aids and medical appointments. The age discrimination and unpaid wages claims had been withdrawn before the merits hearing.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was capability, not the conduct matters raised at the investigation stage. It held that Mr Carter focused on the claimant's historic sickness absence and likely future absence after hip surgery, but the respondent failed to apply its Attendance Management Procedure properly and went straight to an Employment Review without first using the earlier stages. The dismissal was therefore unfair. The tribunal also found that, if the procedure had been followed, the claimant would likely have been fairly dismissed for capability on 31 March 2019, and that any compensatory award would be reduced for Polkey and by 25% for contributory conduct.

The section 15 Equality Act claim for discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the absences between March and August 2018 and the 20 November 2018 GP appointment arose in consequence of the disability, and that the dismissal was because of those matters and the wider sickness absence record. However, it accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of maintaining an adequate workforce to enable production to continue and held that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the production-line roles involved walking and standing and that, in that setting, seating was not available in the immediate work area; that PCP placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of his mobility impairment. It found that the respondent generally allowed an adapted walking aid and time off for medical appointments, but insufficient consideration was given to seating as an adjustment. The case was listed for a later remedy hearing, so no final monetary award was determined in this judgment.