Ms T O’Halloran, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

Ms Victoria Judd brought a disability discrimination claim after the respondent withdrew an offer of a six-month secondment to Montenegro on 14 November 2018. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled and that the respondent had applied the admitted PCPs of requiring her to spend 75% of working days abroad, placing the secondment in a country with sub-optimal healthcare, and requiring Healix medical clearance. It found that the substantial disadvantage was that she did not secure the posting.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that the respondent had not failed to comply with sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the respondent sought two occupational health assessments and considered the mitigating recommendations, but concluded that allowing the claimant to proceed with the Montenegro secondment was not reasonable in light of the Healix high-risk assessment, the medical evidence then available, the limited healthcare in Montenegro, and the language and emergency-care concerns. The tribunal also found that an alternative UK role would have been a reasonable adjustment, but the claimant declined that option.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the unfavourable treatment was the withdrawal of the posting and that the relevant thing arising from disability was the claimant's potential need for medical treatment and support. It identified the respondent's legitimate aim as safeguarding the health, safety and wellbeing of secondees working abroad, and held that the decision to withdraw the offer in November 2018 was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal therefore dismissed both heads of claim and made no monetary award.