Mr B Mellor v Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service FINAL HEARING — 2024

By consent, the claimant's direct disability discrimination complaints about dismissal and about the alleged failure to obtain up-to-date medical evidence were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal then considered the remaining claims: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, both arising from the claimant's dismissal for ill-health incapability on 17 January 2022 after sickness absence from November 2020.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been in a long period of ill health and that his return to work was complicated by his continuing focus on events from July 2019 to February 2020, including the earlier disciplinary and grievance processes. Occupational health evidence in 2021 said he was not fit for work but could discuss potential solutions with management. At the capability meetings in September and November 2021 and in the appeal, he repeatedly said he did not want to work anywhere other than the BAM team, that he could not work there unless Mr Williams was replaced as his line manager, and that he remained highly triggered by matters connected with Mr Luznyj, the earlier grievance issues, and being at the respondent's headquarters. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was dealing with a small specialist team, that there was no practical way to remove the relevant managers or recreate the claimant's preferred workplace, and that ill-health retirement was raised but not taken up by the claimant.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the statutory test in section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach. It held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant could not return to work in the foreseeable future, that it had consulted him and considered the medical evidence, and that there was no reasonable and viable alternative to dismissal. It also found that any further request for the respondent simply to obtain and review more medical records would not have assisted, and that the process was not made unfair by the pace of the stage 3 capability process or by the handling of the appeal. The later appeal process, including the meeting on 10 March 2022 and the appeal decision on 13 September 2022, did not alter the substance of the information available to the respondent and, if anything, reinforced the fairness of the decision.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had legitimate aims of protecting health and safety and employing people who could attend work without exacerbating their mental health. Applying the proportionality analysis, it concluded that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims because there was no realistic alternative that would allow the claimant to return safely to work in the role he wanted, and because returning him would have carried a significant risk of further deterioration in his mental health. The appeal outcome was also held to be proportionate on the same reasoning. The whole of the remaining claim was therefore dismissed.