Mr Y Patel v NewDay Cards plc — 2025

Mr Patel was employed as a Digital Coordinator taking customer calls. After a large stroke on 31 July 2022, he was in hospital until 22 December 2022 and then continued rehabilitation with assistance from an Occupational Therapist, Ms Stubbs. Her reports in December 2022, January 2023 and March 2023 described significant fatigue, mobility limits, loss of functional use in an upper limb, and cognitive difficulties, and recommended a graded return to work, initially working from home and later progressing gradually back into the office.

The respondent dismissed Mr Patel on 5 May 2023 following long-term absence. It said there was no foreseeable return to work, that the suggested support would be unsustainable, and that it could not provide assistance with moving him around the office. The tribunal also dealt with limitation, holding that the appeal process formed part of a continuing act and that the claim was in time; alternatively it would have extended time on a just and equitable basis.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was substantially disadvantaged by the 50% office-attendance requirement, the requirement to be able to move himself around unaided in a wheelchair, and the respondent's approach to the phased return. It found that a temporary period of home working at the start of the return, the graded return recommended by Ms Stubbs, and investigating Access to Work for a motorised wheelchair were reasonable adjustments. It rejected the suggestion that the claimant should start on one-hour twice-daily sessions, and it held that requiring the respondent to provide someone to push the wheelchair around the office and to the toilet was not reasonable.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had legitimate aims in requiring productive work and managing long-term absence, and that it was reasonable to believe at the final absence meeting that Mr Patel was not yet fit to return at the end of April 2023. However, it held that dismissal on 5 May 2023 was not proportionate because the respondent had not resolved the contradiction between the GP fit note and Ms Stubbs' report, had not sought updated specialist advice, and had less discriminatory alternatives available. The tribunal found that a further occupational health or therapy report could have been obtained and that the staged return could have been allowed to develop over the following weeks.

The direct race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found there was very limited evidence about the comparators, that Ms White's circumstances included ill-health retirement and Mr Patel was not in the same position, and that Ms Smith's condition and prognosis were materially different. It concluded that the reason for dismissal and the unsuccessful appeal was the respondent's perception that Mr Patel was not well enough to return to work, not his race. No monetary remedy was recorded in the extracted text.