Mr M Elliott v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2022

The claimant was employed by the respondent from 2004 until dismissal with notice ending on 3 March 2020. He had knee impairments which the respondent accepted were a disability, and he was absent from work from July 2019 because of knee pain. The respondent accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment, that it was in part because of the claimant's absence record, and that the absence record arose in consequence of disability.

On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal found that the duty to make adjustments was not triggered because the claimant remained certified as unfit for work and did not provide a return to work date. It also considered the proposed adjustments in the alternative. It found that working from home doing non-telephony work might have avoided the disadvantage of the office-working requirement, but was not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances at the relevant time; the other proposed adjustments would not have avoided the disadvantage or were out of time.

On discrimination arising from disability, the Tribunal accepted most of the respondent's stated aims as legitimate and found dismissal to be a proportionate means of achieving them. It found that managers had considered steps to support a return, including processing work, reduced hours, phased return, workplace changes, demotion, DSE assessment and temporary processing work from home, but the claimant remained unable to provide a return date.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability related to ill health, a potentially fair reason. It found that the respondent had a genuine belief, had carried out a reasonable investigation, had reasonable grounds, and had followed a reasonable process including consultation, occupational health input and an appeal. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The age discrimination complaints were withdrawn by the claimant after the evidence concluded.