In person (assisted by Ms F Nimoni, the claimant's daughter) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant had worked as a Travel Trainer since 2011 and suffered a work accident in February 2016 which left her with mobility problems. After returning to work she was unable to do the physically demanding full Travel Trainer role, so the respondent created an adapted office-based role for her. The tribunal found that this adapted work benefited the wider service, but it was not the claimant's normal contractual role.

In 2018 the respondent proposed a restructure of the travel service, including direct assimilation of Travel Trainers into new Grade 4 posts and creation of a Grade 6 Travel Assistance Case Manager role. The tribunal accepted that the restructure was designed to improve service delivery and efficiency. The claimant could not be directly assimilated into the Grade 6 role, was referred to occupational health, and was placed on the redeployment register. She applied for a number of roles, including higher-grade posts, and was given a temporary Business Support Officer role in the Pollution team, but she was not matched into a permanent Grade 4 vacancy.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that capability was the reason for dismissal, but the dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to consider whether its redeployment policy should be adjusted for the claimant. The tribunal considered that a reasonable employer would have matched her into an available Grade 4 role, and that requiring her to compete through interview for those posts took the dismissal outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also held that there was no Polkey reduction, but that compensation would be reduced by 20% for contributory fault because some of the claimant's applications had not been completed as fully as they could have been.

The claim under s.20 and s.21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The tribunal held that the requirement to be fit enough to perform the Travel Trainer role placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her disability. It found that the reasonable adjustment which would have avoided that disadvantage was to match her into a vacant Grade 4 role, rather than requiring her to apply and interview under the redeployment policy, and to provide training where needed. The tribunal found that the reasonable adjustments claim was brought out of time on the face of it, but it was just and equitable to extend time because the acts formed a continuing course of conduct ending on 12 April 2019.

The claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 also succeeded. The tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's inability to do the Travel Trainer role, and that this inability arose in consequence of her disability. The respondent accepted the legitimacy of its aims, but the tribunal held that dismissal was not proportionate because there were other, less intrusive ways of dealing with the claimant's position, including matching her to Grade 4 vacancies.