Mr M R Sabir Mr M A Sabir v Schaeffler (UK) Limited — 2020

The claimants were twin brothers employed as assembly operatives who had retinitis pigmentosa, and the respondent accepted they were disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. After they disclosed their condition in January 2016, the parties exchanged letters, medical authorisations, occupational health referrals and Access to Work material, and the tribunal found that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and related disadvantage by late January or, at the latest, the end of February 2016. It also found that by 18 April 2016 the respondent knew of the disadvantage caused by the workplace layout and the need for auxiliary aids.

The tribunal held that it was reasonable for the respondent to seek medical advice before allowing a return to work, and it accepted that matters were handled reasonably quickly until the end of March 2016. However, it found that after Dr Oliver’s reports at the end of March 2016 the claimants were fit to work with adjustments, and that time was then wasted by waiting for further specialist reports and by delaying consultation and implementation. The tribunal concluded that, had the duty to make reasonable adjustments been complied with, the claimants would have been able to return to work in a new role in disassembly by the end of November 2016, rather than in September 2017.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded in part. The tribunal held that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by delaying the claimants’ return to a new role until September 2017, failed within the same timescale to provide auxiliary aids and equipment needed for that adjusted role, and committed a further breach when Mr Wright carried out the July 2017 risk assessment on the wrong premise, without factoring in the reasonable adjustments. By contrast, the tribunal rejected the claimants’ case that it was a reasonable adjustment to let them return to their substantive roles with support-worker assistance, finding that this would have been impracticable and disruptive given the respondent’s 24/7 shift system, the bottleneck machines involved, and the need to displace other workers.

The section 15 claim also succeeded in part. The tribunal held that requiring the claimants to remain on sick leave from early April 2016 until September 2017 was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that the respondent had a legitimate aim in keeping them out of work until suitable adjustments were in place, but held that the continued refusal to allow a return after the end of November 2016 was not proportionate because the adjustments should then already have been implemented. The tribunal also said that, before that point, keeping them out of the workplace pending medical and workplace assessment was justified on safety grounds.

The claimants’ application to amend the case to add harassment related to disability was refused. The tribunal held that the application introduced a new cause of action late in the proceedings, would have required substantially different evidence, and would have prejudiced the respondent. This reserved judgment resolved liability only and does not record any monetary remedy.