Miss J Beveridge v Durham University Hybrid hearing — 2021

Miss J Beveridge was employed by Durham University as a project archaeologist. The tribunal found that her role was predominantly field-based, with a smaller proportion of lab and report-writing work, and that after a back and shoulder injury from November 2014 she was restricted from excavation and other physically demanding tasks. The respondent kept her under review over a long period, obtained occupational health and consultant reports, moved her into lab-based work, and later treated those arrangements as temporary while it considered whether she could return to her substantive role.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability under section 98(2) ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent had a reasonable belief, based on up-to-date medical evidence, that the claimant could not perform the majority of her role. It also found that the claimant was consulted through a series of meetings, that she was given the opportunity to make representations, that redeployment was discussed repeatedly, and that the respondent allowed her time to consider ill-health retirement and redeployment before final dismissal. Applying the fairness question under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was a reasonable response.

On the disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes and that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from something connected with her disability, namely her inability to undertake the full duties of the role. It held, however, that dismissal was proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring that employees could carry out the duties of their posts. The tribunal relied on the long period during which the respondent kept her in adjusted work, the fact that much of the lab work was ad hoc or duplicative, and the absence of a viable alternative role within the archaeology department. On reasonable adjustments, it found that the respondent had considered the claimant's proposed lab duties, redeployment, and the computer equipment issue, and did not find a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.