Claimant v Mitie Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed as a security guard and developed substantial sight loss in January 2021. The respondent admitted disability, and the tribunal found that by March 2021 the respondent knew or ought to have known that the claimant was disabled and likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage in carrying out roles requiring sight, night work, or travel to Southampton docks.

The tribunal found that the respondent relied too heavily on occupational health reports and did not adequately explore what the claimant could do with adjustments, auxiliary aids, workplace assessment, or external support. It found that the respondent should have investigated the potential future vacancy arising from Mr Carr's retirement, considered whether that role could be adjusted, and delayed the capability process while that possibility was explored.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments, and that dismissing the claimant was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability which was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim. It also found the capability dismissal unfair because the respondent had not made reasonable inquiries, could reasonably have waited longer, and dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.