Mr I T Pattison v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2021

The claimant was a Senior Therapist at the Westgate Unit within HMP Frankland. It was conceded that he was disabled by reason of atrial fibrillation, that the respondent knew of the disability, and that he was dismissed because of his use of anticoagulant medication. The tribunal found that prisoner contact was central to his role, including therapy work, wing meetings, community events and movement around the unit, and rejected the claimant's evidence that only about 10% of his role involved prisoner contact.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal considered the proposed adjustments of a helmet or other protection, a protective wall or screen, and video-link assessments. It found that a helmet would not avoid the disadvantage and might identify vulnerability; a wall or screen would only address some one-to-one therapy situations and not the wider prisoner-facing role; and video work would not address the wider functions of the post. It also accepted evidence that these measures would have a significant negative impact on the delivery of therapy and that a trial would not have been reasonable.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from disability, but found it justified. The respondent's aims of providing a safe working environment, ensuring staff safety and delivering effective therapeutic treatment were legitimate, and dismissal was found to be an appropriate and reasonably necessary means of achieving them, particularly given the OH advice, the risk assessment, the lack of suitable alternative roles, and the claimant's refusal of an administrative role with pay protection.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant could not safely continue in his substantive role, had reasonable grounds for that belief, had obtained adequate occupational health evidence and conducted a relevant risk assessment, and had followed a fair procedure. It concluded that dismissal for capability was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed all complaints.