Dr E L Fitzpatrick v Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust — 2019

Dr Fitzpatrick was employed by Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust as a consultant clinical psychologist and was accepted to be disabled by reason of dyspraxia and Irlen Syndrome. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about the respondent’s disciplinary and capability processes from 2015 onwards, including White Rose Dyslexia Centre assessments, Access to Work support, and a series of adjustments, training, and coaching measures introduced while the claimant moved between paediatric work and CAMHS roles.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because the alleged failures formed a continuing act. It found that by the date of dismissal Dragon training had been provided, Texthelp Read and Write training had not been provided, and only part of the coping strategy coaching had been delivered. Even so, it held that it was reasonable in all the circumstances not to require the respondent to keep the claimant in post for longer until every element of training and coaching had been completed and embedded, given the long history of performance concerns, the clinical risk identified, and the substantial support already provided.

On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the claimant’s incapability arose in consequence of disability. The respondent accepted the legitimacy of aims including service efficiency and safety, and the tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims. It relied on the broader history of the case rather than only the final monitoring period, and concluded that further time should not have been allowed.

The unfair dismissal complaint also failed. Capability was accepted as the potentially fair reason for dismissal, and the tribunal held that a reasonable NHS Trust would have reached the same conclusion under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the respondent had obtained medical input, consulted the claimant, provided substantial adjustments and extra administrative time, and allowed time for improvement. The appeal was not upheld, and no monetary award was made.