Mr J Adu v Mitie Limited — 2025

The claimant, a Security Officer, was dismissed after a long period of sickness absence connected to arthritis in both knees and knee replacement surgery. The tribunal found that medical evidence in December 2023 indicated a foreseeable prospect of return with amended duties or workplace adaptations, and that the respondent did not obtain an up-to-date Occupational Health report before dismissal or appeal.

For the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a requirement for Security Officers to be relatively fit and able to stand for prolonged periods, and that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It found there was some prospect that adjustments such as transfer to a mainly reception or CCTV role, adjusted shifts, reduced hours, or a phased return could have enabled a return to work, and that these should have been considered with Occupational Health input.

For discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted the legitimate aim of ensuring the business ran efficiently, but found dismissal was not reasonably necessary given the medical evidence and the alternative of consulting Occupational Health about return date and role. For unfair dismissal, it found the respondent acted outside the range of reasonable responses by dismissing and rejecting the appeal without further medical clarity, and by relying on material inaccuracies in the appeal process.