Ms Tallena Prazak v Age UK Wandsworth — 2021

Ms Tallena Prazak was employed by Age UK Wandsworth as a handyperson from 13 May 2015 until her dismissal on 15 February 2019. She was diagnosed with costochondritis in January 2018. The tribunal found that drilling formed a substantial part of her job, and that drilling exacerbated her pain. The respondent removed drilling from her duties and put her on light duties and an amended job description, first as a temporary arrangement and then for a prolonged period while it sought medical information and reviewed her position.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment and that it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It held, however, that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the condition would last more than 12 months when it started the formal process in September 2018, in light of the occupational health report then available. By 6 December 2018, the condition had lasted nearly a year and the medical evidence indicated it could last over a year, so the tribunal found that from that date the claimant was disabled for Equality Act purposes and the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal accepted that the respondent had already removed the drilling requirement and kept the claimant on light duties for a significant period. It found that the PCP requiring a handyperson to do substantial drilling put the claimant at a disadvantage, but that the respondent took such steps as were reasonable to avoid that disadvantage. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had shown the respondent required her to continue drilling once the adjustment had been made.

The dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent used a disciplinary policy that was not an appropriate sickness or capability procedure, but it found the steps taken were those a reasonable employer would take in an ill-health capability process. It noted the claimant was warned that her job was at risk, allowed representation, referred to occupational health and her GP, and given review meetings and an appeal. The tribunal found the respondent waited a reasonable length of time to see whether she could return to full duties and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the dismissal discrimination complaint, finding the respondent acted proportionately in pursuing its aim of maintaining a viable organisation.