Mr J Paramu v Home Office — 2017

The claimant was employed by the Home Office from November 2001 and was dismissed in August 2017 after a prolonged absence from work beginning in November 2015. The Tribunal found that occupational health reports stated there was no medical barrier preventing a return to work, but that the claimant said he could not return to UKVI and sought a move elsewhere. The respondent held five attendance review meetings, made three occupational health referrals, discussed a phased return, and warned that continued absence could result in dismissal.

The direct race discrimination complaints concerned refusal of more time in August 2017, dismissal, the appeal outcome, and failure to offer an alternative post. The Tribunal found the claimant had not led evidence supporting direct race discrimination and accepted the respondent's explanations: the decisions were linked to prolonged absence, refusal to return to UKVI, and the circumstances of the job application rather than race. The victimisation claim was also dismissed because the appeal email and appeal hearing did not amount to protected acts under the Equality Act 2010.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability due to prolonged absence and, alternatively, some other substantial reason based on refusal to return to work. It held that the respondent followed a fair and reasonable process, that dismissal fell within the band or range of reasonable responses, and that the respondent was not required to support the absence indefinitely where there was no prospect of return to work.