Case 1306218/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Frew (Counsel) For v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306218/2019
- Decision date
- 26 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mr MZ Khan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Frew (Counsel) For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr James Robinson worked for NACRO as a Support Officer and was a disabled person by reason of Sickle Cell Disease and Retinitis Pigmentosa. After he lost his driving licence in June 2018, the respondent carried out a disability risk assessment, changed his geographical area, and agreed that family members could provide transport where necessary. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and contemporaneous documents where there was conflict on disputed facts.
After the claimant went off sick in August 2018 with knee problems, an occupational health report dated 6 November 2018 said he was no longer fit for the Support Officer role and could only return to an indoor office-based role if one were available. At the Stage 2 and Stage 3 sickness meetings in January and March 2019, the claimant accepted that he could not return to BASS, discussed redeployment, and was considered for alternative roles including Service Charge Project Manager and Development Analyst. He withdrew from the Service Charge Project Manager process before the practical test, and the tribunal found that the respondent also explored support through RNIB and Access to Work, but the central issue was safe lone working in the field rather than transport alone.
The tribunal held that the sole reason for dismissal was the respondent's genuine belief that Mr Robinson could no longer safely perform the Support Officer duties, and that belief was reasonably grounded in the medical evidence and the claimant's own position. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on capability dismissals, it found the dismissal fair. It also rejected the disability claims: there was no direct discrimination, the s.15 complaint failed because dismissal was justified by the respondent's legitimate aim of safe service delivery under its MOJ contract, and the reasonable adjustments complaint failed because a driver would not have removed the disadvantage and the companion-policy point did not establish a disability-related disadvantage. The appeal was dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the sole reason for dismissal was a genuine capability concern based on the medical evidence and the claimant's own acknowledgments that he could not safely continue in the Support Officer role. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed; the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of disability and accepted that a non-disabled employee unable to safely perform the role would also have been dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim dismissed; the tribunal accepted the claimant was treated unfavourably because he could not safely perform field-based duties, but held dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of safe service delivery and compliance with the MOJ contract. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed; the tribunal held that providing a driver would not remove the core disadvantage because the claimant still needed office-based work, and it did not find a disability-related disadvantage from the companion policy. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Taylor v Alidair Limited
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Limited
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd.
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Post Office v Foley / HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.15 EqA 2010
- ss.20-21 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Igen Limited v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Gallop v Newport City Council
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited
- Wilson v Post Office
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.